* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 12:55 PM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:09:46 -0400, Jeff said:

No. Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article that demonstrates
that?
A bit disingenuous, don't you think? Oh....you were trying to be cute.

An allegation was made that "most of the experts" would lose their
jobs if the theory were proved false. I've seen no evidence for that
at all. Ironically, there is evidence that the anti-Global Warming
forces offer "bounties" for anything critical of Global Warming:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...rc=rss&feed=11

The one thing that most of the pro-Global Warming research has in
common is that it is published in peer-reviewed journals, where the
editors are experts in the field, and the papers are reviewed by other
experts charged with looking for flaws in the methodology. Not a
perfect system, but it is a foundation of modern science, and having
been through the process I can assure you that scientists take it
seriously.

The one anti-Global Warming paper offered in this discussion (Beck's
180 years accurate CO2 Gas analysis) was published not by one of the
6000 ISI listed peer-reviewed journals, but a journal dedicated to
publishing articles that could not pass normal peer review.



While there are certainly some that have made a career from
global warming, I seriously doubt that most of the research is funded
by some "global warming conspiracy."

Has anyone claimed it has? That's what's called a straw man.

So how else does a academic research scientist lose his job? Research
grants have to come somewhere, they are either from relatively
unbiased sources searching for the truth, or they are from sources
with a special agenda. We know that big business, in particular big
oil, has funded anti-Global Warming research in the past, but who has
been funding pro-Global Warming research? Certainly not the Bush
administration!


Most of the scientists are simply academics doing whatever research
interests them, and what they can get grants for, and in this country,
the government has not been very eager to support GW research.

And of course the critical phrase is "what they can get grants for." Do you
not suppose it might be more difficult to get grants to investigate a
non-problem than to investigate a problem? Might that not predispose one
seeking grants to wish to come down on the side of there being a problem?

Not when the federal government has been insistent that there is no
problem. Actually, there's probably easier money to be made by taking
the "anti" position.


Oh no, of course not. Pure hearts.

Pure hearts, like the American Petroleum Institute, who partially
funded the paper by Baliunas and Soon which claimed that there has
been no climate change in 2000 years. This paper was refuted by the
13 scientists whose work was cited by it, and half of the editorial
board of the journal resigned in protest over the poor peer-review
process.