Soleron said:
Scientists generally do not profit from the work. They are usually employed by universities or government bodies, which are not profit-making organisations. The "other" side, however, does have a large motivation to deny climate change - politicians don't want to pass laws that restrict companies' actions; oil and energy companies don't want to see a switch to less profitable alternatives; all companies don';t want to have to change their processes at all since change costs money.
If money is the argument you want to use, I would say that the deny-global-warming camp has the biggest motivation to lie.
|
What do you think happens to a scientist who thinks global warming isn't real? What kind of university do you think he gets to work at? What if he's just an honest guy who wants to do honest climate research?
He certaintly couldn't work for Oil companies either. He's basically the Wal-mart employee with the best degree out there... either that or working for some low level college.
They have plenty of motivation. Even some oil companies benefit. There is LOTS Of money to be made in green fuels. This is really true if you get the public so afraid they are willing to pay a premium because they think they'll die if they don't.
Regardless the best way to look through it is the scientific method.
I have no problems with lowering carbon footprints. I think it's a great idea for non-gobal warming reasons. However, I can't stand faulty science.
Science was better off back when it was rich men's hobbies. There it was more uncorruptable. Ironically the golden times os science seem to have been when it was mostly ignored.
