Why is it claimed scientists support global warming theory for money, when most all don't get funding for it?

Question

Most of the scientists who agree that (mostly man made) global warming is real don't get funding for global warming research. They include the members of EVERY major scientific organization:

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

These people don't get funding for global warming research, but they do know what good science is, and what scientific proof is.

Answer 1

Please Bob - Don't try to get us to believe this BS.

Just read Dr. William Gray's statements where he says he has to use his own money because the believers cut him off from receiving public research money.

"Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research going. He feels intellectually abandoned. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says, that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit.

Which is this: Global warming is a hoax.

"I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people," he says when I visit him in his office on a sunny spring afternoon.

He has testified about this to the United States Senate. He has written magazine articles, given speeches, done everything he could to get the message out. His scientific position relies heavily on what is known as the Argument From Authority. He's the authority."

[Edit] To believe that there is no public funding for "global warming" is to say that GISS and Dr. Hansen are not gvmt agencies or employees.

Answer 2

If they were any good they would be in the private sector making money.

The private sector employs the best and the brightest.  The universities get the leftovers.

The private sector scientists advace technology and they're too busy doing what they do to get involved in the global warming sillyness.

Answer 3

Here is what Dr. Hansen said about the IPCC....

Certain positive feedback effects, as well as recent data on the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, were not included in the IPCC's report. "Because of the cumbersome IPCC review process, they exclude recent information," Prof. Hansen says, "so they are very handicapped."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...

Looks like trouble in the global warming alarmist's paradise.

Here is another former IPCC member turned 'Skeptic.'

http://newsbusters.org/node/13971

I told you before that the IPCC has a filtering system that selectively excludes information that shows that global warming is not happening.  They are going to implode on themselves and mess their diapers very soon.

Any last words Bob?

Answer 4

I think it's because many of them lack a personal high standard of ethics and thus assume everyone else is unethical too.

Another factor is that they probably have no personal experience at scientific research, grant funding, or anything else remotely related to your question, so out of ignorance they're able to fabricate all kinds of unsupported claims.

Answer 5

To seemingly discredit those who believe in GW for whatever reasons there are to try to create doubt around this issue.

Answer 6

The National Academy of Sciences,  

????????

You are kidding aren't you?????

Who do you think pays for these people????? Private business?   No, if that was the case they would starve, the are a child of government welfare.   On the drawl,  that means they have NO< understand????? NO, credibility, with any thinking person.

Answer 7

It sounds good, doesn't it?  How about CO2 only holds onto heat for a second?  Beats global warming on Mars and cow farts, I'd say.

Answer 8

If you count the $1 Billion dollars donated by Ted Turner to the UN (mostly for the IPCC), or the $1 Million dollars donated by the Heinz Corporation, or the $52 Million donated by Pew Charitable Trusts to research global warming - as "no funding," then you’re right, there’s no funding.

Big broadcasting, big ketchup, and big charities makes “big oil” look lame.

EDIT: I forgot to list the $2 Billion in government funding.

Answer 9

"...Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/...

Answer 10

Well, to be fair, many of the scientists who are members of those organizations do study climate science and get grant money for doing so.  However, their salaries are not contingent on their grants.

'Skeptics' attempt to portray scientists as 'in it for the money' because they can't dispute the scientific evidence.  It's a way to discredit the scientific evidence indirectly.  If it's collected by corrupt money-grubbing scientists, then maybe the data is just wrong!  It's a desperate tactic in the face of overwhelming opposing scientific evidence.  If you can't argue science, try to turn the argument to politics.

Cindy - Did you even read your own answer?  Hansen's criticisms are that the IPCC is not including recent data which would lead to the conclusion that global warming is an even bigger problem than they have stated.  He's calling the IPCC to conservative, not too alarmist.  In short, he's saying the exact opposite of what you're saying.  You totally undermined your argument by including those Hansen quotes.

Answer 11

not only do they not get so much funding, some have had thiers cut (or been threatened by it).

Scientific reticence and sea level rise

J E Hansen

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies,

Published 24 May 2007

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/...