An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth

[pinhead]

Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap

One of the problems with peer-reviewed scientific research is the scientists are dependent on grant money.

All research is dependant funding. That source of the funding is usually the University's own research budget, governments, charitable foundations, the military or corporations. The military and corporations are less likely to fund research that is not going to result in some useable product or application. Very rarely will these groups fund pure science for altruistic reasons.

Consider the court case that started this thread. It was started by a headmaster who was funded by "a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...190770,00.html

Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap

Those honest scientists with the balls to debunk the global warming groupthink quickly find their research funding has dried up.

If you look at the previous post. The scientific method and inductive reasoning searches for the truth whatever that may be. Some conclusions will be unpopular and against popular opinion but opinions have no role in science.

It is through experimentation, collection of data and publication in peer reviewed journals (peers = scientists conducting research in that field) that our body of knowledge increases.

Have you got any names of debunking scientists who have lost funding?

Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap

I do understand science better than most, I also understand the limitations of science and the pressure researchers face to come up with the "right" findings. What I object to is politics interfering with science.

Ignore the politicians and the lobbyists. Don't accept one one side or another says.

Look at the research from the scientists with an open mind and no preconceptions. If you truly understand how science works you'll see that global warming is real.