On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 07:46:16 -0600, Prometheus
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:55:45 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Bob Schmall wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Charles Koester wrote:
On 2007-02-15, J Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
wrote:

I'm not saying that scientist are, as a group, dishonest. They are
merely practical
when it comes to funding. You have to keep your patron happy. When
the subject
is so complex and dense that what is "right" is not yet known, you can
cook up
the model that makes your patron happy.

Are you actually suggesting that EVERY ONE of the scientists who believe
in the facts of global warming is doing so to make money? Please provide
some evidence.
And are further suggesting that EVERY ONE of the very few scientists who
disbelieve in global warming is incorruptible?

No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to. The models
are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply
a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which
is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study
of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about
just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would
thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.

And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.

The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil
oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.

Don't forget that there are plenty of ways in which corporate entities
can benefit from global warming legislation if they play their cards
right. If they put money in the right pockets, and a "carbon
surcharge" is added to every gallon of gasoline, an oil company would
stand to make a lot of money- maybe not as a direct 1-1 payment for
every gallon of gasoline sold, but certainly in the form of grants
intended to help them research ways to "clean up" their acts.

Dividing the government and global corporate structures into two
distinct and opposing groups is a fool's task. Who do you think
ponyied up the cash to get the politicians elected in the first place?

Before anyone jumps on me for it, yes, I am aware of the contridiction
between this and a previous post. I had a moment of foolishness when
thinking about business, and considered that some of those companies
may be being attacked by this- no doubt some are, but I don't imagine
you have to scratch very deep to find a whole lot of connections to
corporate lobbies.

Rest assured, it is and will continue to be "business as usual". The
big boys beat their drums to confuse things, they make out, and the
rest of us get screwed while we continue to pay their bills.

The big issue with "global warming" is the Kyoto Accord, in which
everyone but the US is saying in effect "the US must clean up its act
but the rest of us don't have to". If the US signed it then they
wouldn't have anything to whine about, at least not until they started
freezing to death in the dark. But who in his right mind would agree
to such a thing?