Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (44152)	11/8/2017 7:08:52 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 355627

Because it won't get done. You expect the money to magically materialize? Either industry funds things- and the studies are hopelessly biased, or the government does, and they could be biased, but are less likely to be. Industry definitely has cash on the line- government scientists, not quite as much. I know the right wing thinks climate change is some big hoax- but sadly, I fear it is not. I hang out with scientists. I've been to talks with some of the experts in the field. I come from the sciences myself- my undergrad degree is in science. I worked for professors doing work with government grants. My experiences with scientists not funded by industry was good. In general, I'm impressed by their curiosity and independence. People outside of the sciences might not have any idea what it's like in research labs. Industry paid for science is a whole nother kettle of fish. I'm not sure why you'd trust the foxes to guard the henhouse- but then you're a guy who claims to like the environment who voted for Trump. So what can I say? The money should come from the government and the people who do the studies should be as independent as possible. Or, we could just look at studies other countries have done. Australia did a decent job tackling this problem. Thoughts and prayers didn't do it for them.