There are literally thousands of scientists from a broad range of
disciplines, both in government, academia and in privately funded
research, who are drawing the same conclusion -- the ever increasing
burning of fossil fuels is altering our global climate. When research
is published in peer review journals and subjected to intense
scrutiny, one expects our understanding of this (or any other issue)
will generally move forward. While not altogether perfect, I have
much greater confidence in this approach than I do the work of someone
who is, in effect, a paid lobbyist.

Cheers,
Paul

On 25 Jan 2007 09:19:37 -0800, wrote:

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?