Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On 30 Mar 2007 13:14:04 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:59:23 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal
said:

I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist.
So just what was it that you intended to convey by:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../304248a0.html


Well let's do it and get an idea of what the areas of my expertise
are.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search


The spurious hits are mainly my late dad (p.f.).


Go find the rest of the papers with my name on them (Wareing)
I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding.
There is of course a third possibility. You could conceivably be
knowledgeable and not the recipient of any potentially corrupting funding. I
take it you're eliminating that possibility.

The funding has increased but what really kills funding is scientific
dishonesty or even just one honest mistake.

Not necessarily. One can keep getting funding if they are supporting by
a politically favored viewpoint.



Although this research adds to the jigsaw there is no yes/no to GW to
be had from it, so it is hard to see how it could possibly be
corrupted by public funding or any expectations of government. Why any
government would actually *want* a "yes" answer is beyond reason.


You've got to be kidding. Or trying to pull a quick one.

A "yes" would support a political platform or viewpoint.

Do you think Al Gore would propose funding to blow his political agenda
out of the water? Or do you think we would use his political influence
to fund research that would be interpreted in a way so as to support his
position?