"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:51:25 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



How many hours do you suppose the world's top climate scientists have
put into critiquing their technology?

I wouldn't know, and neither would you.

Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?

That's not my experience with high-level scientists. They tend to be
curmudgeonly and skeptical in the extreme.

Neither of these generalities has been my experience. There are a few
curmedgeons, skeptics and cynics but most of those I've known were
open-minded and highly ethical.

Curmudgeonly means crusty and short-tempered. Skeptical means inclined
toward doubt until something is proven. Neither one relates in any way
toward open- or closed-mindedness, ethical or unethical, Don. It just means
they don't suffer fools well and they don't believe something just because
someone tells them it's true.

I've known a number of them, having
worked in a world-class research lab the latter 25 years of my career.
These people did not need to compromise integrity to find funding and
they were strongly disinclined to do so.
Management might push for
that but top scientists are quite able to resist such pressure.

I agree, and I've known several of them personally. The type Larry is
talking about sounds like the bottom layer, not top scientists.

--
Ed Huntress