Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters does this seem like legitimate science. Fence sitters is this the right approach?http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59463
You would think researchers would welcome an opportunity to balance that vast library of one-sided research with an analysis of the natural causes of climate change—to enable them to evaluate the relative impact of human activities, more accurately predict future changes, and ensure that communities, states and nations can plan for, mitigate and adapt to those impacts. You would be wrong.
Climate change politics and financing
A few weeks ago, Nebraska lawmakers called for a wide-ranging study of “cyclical” climate change. Funded by the state, the $44,000 effort was to be limited to natural causes—not additional speculation about manmade effects. Amazingly, University of Nebraska scientists are not just refusing to participate in the study, unless it includes human influences. One climatologist at the university’s National Drought Mitigation Center actually said he would not be comfortable circulating a study proposal or asking other scientists to participate in it; in fact, he “would not send it out” to anyone. The director of the High Plains Climate Center sniffed, “If it’s only natural causes, we would not be interested.”
I thought science looks at all avenues. Every possibility. Not climate science. What do you think about that fence sitters?
No, it is not right just as it was not right to offer a $10,000.00 payment for any scientist of note to publish a paper supporting only the natural cause view. It is paying for an outcome not trying to determine the truth and that is not right.
Maybe they can do the same to offset all of the research showing evolution is real as opposed to the belief in creationism? That is the same thing, but still just as wrong.