[ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?

James Clement clementlawyer at hotmail.com
Sun Sep 30 18:47:01 UTC 2007

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




Nor is the government strictly one-sided:


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
>> 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
> 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.


extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list