By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ssenkahdavic said:

Science follows money.  This is the ugly truth that many gloss over.  It is extremely difficult to get funding for unpopular and/or "non economic" science (I know, I tried).  There is basically nothing worse in Science than "Cherry Picking your data" and I feel funding is doing almost the same thing.

Im actually very surprised Energy Companies are not going gangbusters over trying to fund "Counter Global Climate Change" research.  Well, not really that surprised, they are more inclined to spend their money to make money/diversify their energy than try to save their images through Science...that is what Marketecture/PR is for.

As for those 2 questions, there is an answer I am just unsure that Funding will be given to find it.

I can tell you right now that science mostly doesn't follow money. Science certainly seeks money for funding, but research typically continues as much as it can in isolation. And given that I've been searching for a postdoc in fields related to climate change, I can tell you right now, there's not a lot of funding out there for it to begin with. There's no scientific or political conspiracy to prioritise climate change research in favour of anything - there's barely enough support for any sort of investigation. And no funding request that goes "I'd like money for further research supporting the idea that climate change is man-made" - such a request would be rejected on the spot. No, requests go like this: "The issue of climate change is a controversial one, and continued research as to its causes and effects is needed."

As as you mention, energy companies would easily be able to fund research challenging climate change. So why aren't they doing it? Because even they recognise good science, and understand that the preponderance of evidence supports the idea that climate change is real and primarily man-made in this situation. Hence why companies that could easily spend their money on research challenging the evidence instead spend it on research into ways to reduce emissions, etc.