[geeks] Global warming, was Mr Bill?

[wa2egp at att.net]

> Science is also infused with politics, and grant money goes to  
> scientists that find new ways of reinforcing the opinions/views/ 
> desired outcomes of the folks offering the research grants.
> 
> If you need to publish to keep from perishing, I suspect it is much  
> easier to get a work that "proves" global warming than it is to  
> challenge that belief... So then you have a preponderence of work that  
> proves global warming simply because that was the easy way to get  
> published.
> 
> Lionel

If there is any difference in whether something is published due to its support or refuting of an idea, I never heard of it.  Scientific journals accept articles based on their scientific accuracy meaning that they follow a standardized method of investigation.  The article is always subject to being shot down by readers.  A published article is not a definitive answer, just a presentation of what one person or group has done for others to see and analyze.

Grant money is different.  Certain religious will fund "research" that will debunk evolution for example, even if the "research" is totally bogus as an example.  There is less of that in mainstream science although it does happen.  Tobacco companies would fund research that might proved tobacco is not dangerous.  If published in a scientific journal, that research would be challenged by other researchers.  Scientists love to shoot down each other's theories.

Bob