Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
59,470
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: − +
→See also: Spelling, grammar, and general fixes
* Certainly AGW supporters claim that academic researchers are only concerned about the science and are not concerned about the funding incentives. This may be true (though a bit naïve, for anyone who has been in a university environment and sought research funding), but if pro-AGW researchers are not swayed by the funding, then it should be equally true that AGW skeptics are not swayed by much smaller amounts of money flowing to them. Any argument that tries to claim that these situations are somehow different just ends up being circular, i.e. “it’s OK if our guys do it because our guys are right.” [''ibid'']
* Certainly AGW supporters claim that academic researchers are only concerned about the science and are not concerned about the funding incentives. This may be true (though a bit naïve, for anyone who has been in a university environment and sought research funding), but if pro-AGW researchers are not swayed by the funding, then it should be equally true that AGW skeptics are not swayed by much smaller amounts of money flowing to them. Any argument that tries to claim that these situations are somehow different just ends up being circular, i.e. “it’s OK if our guys do it because our guys are right.” [''ibid'']
==See Also==
==See also==
*[[scientific research]]
*[[scientific research]]
*[[politicization of science]]
*[[politicization of science]]