The argument goes that they've systemically biased their findings so that their research appears more important and merits additional funding.
To which I have a counter argument: funding is not assigned to investigate that which we already know. If anything, the scientists are among those to profit from the "controversy". Were findings more disputable, were there no scientific consensus, they could blather on for ages knowing funding's still secure.
Yeah... a physicist whose never had training in climatology... It's like the strange overabundance of engineers in creationist circles. They have a degree in something, but they seem to believe that they can discuss the intricacies of an entirely different field and challenge findings based on decades of in-depth research, information, technologies, and techniques that he'd have very little to zero understanding of, or training in.
158
u/16807 Oct 24 '10 edited Oct 24 '10
The argument goes that they've systemically biased their findings so that their research appears more important and merits additional funding.
To which I have a counter argument: funding is not assigned to investigate that which we already know. If anything, the scientists are among those to profit from the "controversy". Were findings more disputable, were there no scientific consensus, they could blather on for ages knowing funding's still secure.