Quote:
Originally Posted by Burninator
But what is the reason that one side is getting the vast majority of the funding? They seem to have a valid theory? Political/environmental group influence? Scientific conspiracy? Al Gore? It would also be interesting to find out if the difference between the funding has always been so broad.
There is usually a simple answer. I would tend to favour the reasoning that the theory getting the funding is doing the best work. Best work in that the results are standing up to validation and are working with the other validated theories. I'll draw the parallel between the ever popular evolution versus creation debate. There is a good reason creationist "scientists" are largely ignored by the rest of the scientific community. There is a good reason the funding between the two is drastically separated. Not the best example, but I am sure you see what I am getting at.
|
That's a dangerous notion though, and one that falls in with my willies over "the science is in" ....
don't assume there isn't money being made on both sides, and certainly don't assume that all the money against is tainted with industry, but the money on the for side is enveloped in a saintly aura.
Getting green is a good idea, but getting green to the expense of logic can be a dangerous one, and a shame if in ten years this whole thing turns out to be a trend.
I saw a really interesting short that had an economist talking about the cost benefit analysis of all the world's ills. He had a large group of economists break into groups and put a bunch of world issues in order of most effecient to least effecient. In the end the global warming initiatives finished last because their ROI were so sketchy. Things like micro nutrients, solving malaria, etc were at the top of the list. Shame to see fear push funds and attention to only one issue when other issues deserve some spotlight.