If a Scientist critical of ';Global Warming'; took a $250,000 reward from an oil corporation?

would he still beconsidered objective, or would he be considered a tool of ';Big Oil'; and Exxon-Mobile?





If a scientist who supports the theory of ';Global Warming'; took a $250,000 ';reward'; from a democratic presidential candidate, would he still beconsidered objective, or would he be considered a tool of liberal politics?





Why is it OK for a scientist to take money from one side, but not the other? Doesn't this give the perception of wrong doing?





Should Hansen be required to give back the money he recieved from John Kerry's presidential campaign?If a Scientist critical of ';Global Warming'; took a $250,000 reward from an oil corporation?
True enough - but I'd be less concerned about it if Hansen's predictions weren't so far off.If a Scientist critical of ';Global Warming'; took a $250,000 reward from an oil corporation?
Money was never a major concern in the scientific field. These days, it is. Whether a scientist receives money from an environmental group to say they support the theory or whether a scientist receives money from an oil company to say they do not support the theory, it is clearly affecting the scientific community.





On one end, if an oil company spent their own money on a group of scientists to develop reasons why global warming is all hysterical nonsense, they that is their decision.





And it is the same if an environmental group spent their own money on a group of scientists to develop reasons why it is true.





But when government money, aka OUR money, is spent on something that should be left in the scientific community, then I start to question the motives. An independent group should be responsible for the money and allot only the actual amounts needed for the study. For far too long people who receive money from the government have been ';cooking'; their own books so they can make a huge profit (everyone knows the joke ';$20,000 for a hammer?';). They should be investigated as the Enron and WorldCom staff were.





I have always thought scientists did their research because of passion, today it is all about the money.
dishonest scientists are paid by the government to scare the public into believing in global warming like the ones trying to get to the north pole to measure the ice. they are stranded with no help to rescue them as the weather is so cold they can not Proceed to the north pole. real scientist say the cold temps last year wiped out all warming. ever notice when Gore talks about the warming it is unusually cold. so now he says climate change.
Nice post. The avatar is funny too. Yes, you are right. That's exactly why some of these scientists roll over on global warming. If you are getting a reward or grant from a democrat then why would you go against the grain?





It's funny how money can bend science when needed. Hockey stick graph. Fake.
It depends:





For example does any of the following make any sense?





Electricity coming out of walls? Not in my house! Radiation bad! Radio good! Radio Frequency! RADIO FREQUENCY! Why do scientists hate America? Why? Why do steel ships float? Steel does not float. Do witches float? Is it witchcraft? Do puppies float? Is it puppycraft? Repeal the 1st amendment?! It is un American to let people criticize this country? Zucchini flavored mouthwash-Yum!





Yes it depends:





Wink!
';The only place where this alleged climate catastrophe is happening is in the virtual world of computer models, not in the real world,'; said Marc Morano, a speaker at the meeting and a spokesman on environmental issues for Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.


the amount of temperature change by co2 is very small compared to the earth and solar cycles the effect the earths climate


if you believe co2 is the cause of global warming then we would never get colder.


you might want to check out the old farmers almanac they predict very cold weather in the future and have predicted this cold winter and last years


they use solar and earth cycles to figure out what will happen


the warming group did not use this they said the earth and solar cycles are neutral and co2 was going up as were the temperatures for awhile this fit their agenda of changing society.


When you do not pick the true cause of global climate change it will prove you wrong every time.


The warming group can not explain why it鈥檚 so cold this winter with their science unless you add in those earth %26amp; solar cycles. plus check the amount of change major cold to their very small warming


the costs to us to lower co2 will come out of your pockets the producers of energy will pass the cost of any carbon costs to us


the rich will own carbon credit companies and you will pay them for what?


The planet has cooled greatly this and last year and your heating usage has gone up.


Bottom line is when their warming models do not match what is going on with global climate. who has the credibility problem


I am not ready to throw a trillion dollars or more at it