I suggest reading Michael Crichton's, "State of Fear." I was widely
condemned by the environmentalists but the main message is not the
environment but using the fear of the perceived crisis to get money.

I have also read Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance". Recall it was 10
chapters, one with summary of potential crisis and the rest political
polemic.

The jury is still out on global warming. Indications are that it is
happening but relative contributions of man and nature are still
largely unknown. We do know that the earth underwent severe heating
and cooling phenomenae before man walked the earth.

It has also been my observation that most scientists are Liberals or
Socialists. It is pretty hard to spend 8-10 years in a university
getting a Ph.D. without it rubbing off from the Liberal/Socialist
faculties.

Frank

On Jan 25, 12:33 pm, Banty wrote:
In article .com,
says...



Just curious - why are those with perceived conflicts of interest on
the 'anti-warming' side seen as self-serving, while those on the
'pro-warming' side are given a pass? All scientists get funding from
somewhere and, as such, all have the opportunity to be self-serving.
How is it that the only ones deemed to be honest on this issue are
those who agree with Al Gore?They get funding from places like the NSF and NOAA.

How does that align with your idea that their work is "self-serving"?

Banty