12-05-2016, 09:34 PM
(12-05-2016, 05:15 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Unclear if that's more or less convincing of a number then, but I do feel it's an important distinction considering rather than talking about all scientists who might have no financial motive involved in their opinion, you're instead talking about a specific group, who while it's their specialization, are also financially dependent upon Global Warming being a thing. I am sure 97% of oil lobbyists will say Global Warming isn't a thing. Why? Their job depends on it.
It's the same reason why everything known to man these days has been "possibly linked to cancer" by "a study". Scientists don't get paid research grants to find nothing, or if they do, they don't continue to get paid if they said "Nope, nothing here."
Always gotta be cautious when there's heavy financial motive involved.
None of this is true at all.
Scientists get research funds to do research. They do not get paid to favor one side or the other unless they are working for private companies like the oil and gas industry.
Same with finding cancer causing agents. There are thousands of studies done each year on all sorts of substances o see if they can be approved for use by the general public. Scientists get paid the same if they find carcinogens or not. If what you claimed was true then there would not have been any new medications approved ever because they would all be labeled as causing cancer.
The only climate change scientists with financial motives are the ones hired by the oil and gas industry. Any government measures to surb global warming would actually HURT the economy. So they have no financial motive to support global warming.
