There are people who worry that "climate change" is really just an attempt by Democrats to charge higher taxes and expand government on the one hand, and supported by scientists who are chiefly concerned with winning ever bigger research grants on the other. The possibility that climate change is real, that and humanity could be facing catastrophe if we don't do something about it, seems less important to them.
Of course, as 2008 demonstrated, this complaint is just as applicable to our financial markets. After all, the financial markets were supported by Republicans (and Democrats) who sought to reduce regulations on the one hand, and like those greedy scientists, those financial experts wanted to cover their losses with bail outs.
In the 1950s, cigarette companies did use scientists to call for more research, only they had them call for more research because, dating back to the 1920s, the research that had already been done proved that cigarettes caused cancer.
"In 1955, Dr. Clarence Little, the first Scientific Director of TIRC, appeared on the Edward R. Murrow show and was asked, “Dr. Little have any cancer-causing agents been identified in cigarettes?” Dr. Little replied, “No. None whatever, either in cigarettes or in any product of smoking, as such.” Dr. Little was also asked, “Suppose the tremendous amount of research going on were to reveal that there is a cancer causing agent in cigarettes, what then?” Dr. Little replied, “It would be made public immediately and just as broadly as we could make it, and then efforts would be taken to attempt to remove that substance or substances”"(http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/6/1070.full)
The difference, of course, is that, with regard to climate change issues, what's "smoking" is our cars, our factories, our rain forests, and soon, perhaps everything else. That's not the kind of smoking most of us can do very much about.
But, yeah, I understand why some people are a little leery about trusting scientists who might say anything to get money for research. Clearly then, had those "climate change" scientists simply explained that the climate "is extremely complex and requires a high degree of expertise to understand," I'm sure they could've gotten a cool $700 billion easy. After all, it worked for CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein and friends; and just look how great they're doing!
Of course, as 2008 demonstrated, this complaint is just as applicable to our financial markets. After all, the financial markets were supported by Republicans (and Democrats) who sought to reduce regulations on the one hand, and like those greedy scientists, those financial experts wanted to cover their losses with bail outs.
In the 1950s, cigarette companies did use scientists to call for more research, only they had them call for more research because, dating back to the 1920s, the research that had already been done proved that cigarettes caused cancer.
"In 1955, Dr. Clarence Little, the first Scientific Director of TIRC, appeared on the Edward R. Murrow show and was asked, “Dr. Little have any cancer-causing agents been identified in cigarettes?” Dr. Little replied, “No. None whatever, either in cigarettes or in any product of smoking, as such.” Dr. Little was also asked, “Suppose the tremendous amount of research going on were to reveal that there is a cancer causing agent in cigarettes, what then?” Dr. Little replied, “It would be made public immediately and just as broadly as we could make it, and then efforts would be taken to attempt to remove that substance or substances”"(http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/6/1070.full)
The difference, of course, is that, with regard to climate change issues, what's "smoking" is our cars, our factories, our rain forests, and soon, perhaps everything else. That's not the kind of smoking most of us can do very much about.
But, yeah, I understand why some people are a little leery about trusting scientists who might say anything to get money for research. Clearly then, had those "climate change" scientists simply explained that the climate "is extremely complex and requires a high degree of expertise to understand," I'm sure they could've gotten a cool $700 billion easy. After all, it worked for CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein and friends; and just look how great they're doing!
Comments
Post a Comment