[ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?

[Lee Corbin]

James writes

> BillK, you're not suggesting that there are no financial incentives for
> those who write research papers against Global Warming, are you?  See

Er, to keep the record straight, wouldn't it be me instead of BillK
to whom your remark should be aimed?

Lee

> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/science/28climate.html?ex=1311739200&en=00
> d5453101bbc950&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
> 
> and
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
> 
> Nor is the government strictly one-sided:
> 
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/19/noaa/index_np.html
> 
> There are tremendous amounts of money to be made and lost by corporations as
> a result of environmental decisions by governments, which under our current
> structure leads to tremendous pressure by some to retain the status quo, and
> by others to push for changes and punish their competition.
> 
> James Clement 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:04 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?
> 
> BillK writes
> 
>> On 9/30/07, Lee Corbin wrote:
>>> Be sure to see
>>>
>>>
> http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2007/06/global-warming-.html
>>>
>>> Global Warming scientist skeptics list is growing...
>>> ... to the absolute chagrin of the kool-aid drinking members of the
> Church of Chicken
>>> Little.  Stumbled across this today and thought it worthy of our
> attention:
>> 
>> As the last reader comment on that item notes...
>> He also notes that this opposes the thousands of scientists who
>> support the theory that humans are a major part of the cause of global
>> warming.
>> 
>> You can probably find more 'scientists' that deny the theory of evolution.
>> Some even still deny that smoking causes cancer.
> 
> There are a number of differences. One is to check if you can be
> suspicious of some prior crackpot element.  Clearly in the case
> of evolution we have ample explanation of the motives of some
> of the creationists and so on---religion is a huge force in human
> thinking and motivation. So what would be the analogy here?
> Do a lot of the names on these list jump out at you as being bought
> and paid for by people who can somehow make money if global
> warming is false?
> 
> Another is the incredible yet obvious, amazing yet not-so-perplexing
> political component of this scientific issue.
> 
> Political component?  Now, how could that be?  I ask seriously, but
> especially if anyone wishes to make an unbiased stab at answering,
> i.e. answering in such a way that the writer's own biases or political
> allegiances are not patent (though of course all comments welcome).
> 
> But being political, one may ask (just as one does in tobacco cases) who
> does the funding?  In this case, it's almost entirely governments and those
> who hope for government grants.  Thus we instantly see the especially
> harmful effects of funding that is partly or mainly politically or
> ideologically motivated.
> 
> The iron law of government bureaucracies is growth, growth, and more
> growth.  A "crisis" real or imagined is damn, damn fine for government
> growth, and is a very convenient truth for those who believe that 
> governments ought to be actively improving our lives a lot more than
> they supposedly are already.
> 
> Lee
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>