06-22-2006, 07:14 PM
Hi,
For people in academia, the situation is almost as bad. The 'publish or perish' requirement to get tenure (and failure to do so in a 'reasonable' time often means dismissal) combined with the lack of financial support from the academic institution itself, means going to outside sponsors. While many of these sponsors have had axes to grind in the past, the situation has become much more severe under the present administration. As with scientists hired directly by government and industry, those doing research paid by those two entities are pressured into giving the 'right' answers. The penalty for failing to do so is simple, no renewal of funding for existing projects, no funding for new proposals. And, eventually, dismissal from the academic institution for failing at the principle job -- bringing in money.
After tenure is granted, one can at least try to be independent. Of course, with no source of funding not much research can be done. Some experimentalist have turned theoreticians or numerical modelers for lack of funds. Many schools do give a small sum to tenured scientists for 'independent research'. By pooling these funds, four or five scientists *might* be able to get one experiment completed a year, and publish a paper (not cheap in a good archival journal) every few years. Not exactly what most of them dreamed of when they decided to devote their life to science and forgo the financial benefits that their abilities would have probably granted them in business or management.
Back on topic. Global warming is a fact. Besides the temperature record there are numerous other indications. Such as the mismatch of the arrival of migrating birds (whose clues to migration is the length of the day, since they cannot tune in to CNN and see what the weather at their destination is) and their primary food supply (which did know what the local weather was like (being there), and hatched, came out of their cocoon, mated and died, flowered and wilted, or flew away when the weather cues were right). Has the earth been warmer in the past? Hell, yes. Both much warmer and much colder. Has the change been so abrupt as it is now? No real good evidence. Over the period where we can resolve decades long change, no. But that is only a blink of an eye in geologic times. The further back we go, the poorer the temporal resolution (unless we have something like the K-T boundary, and even with the Iridium evidence, there are still people who thing the transition took millenia).
How much of the global warming is caused by the activity of humans? 'None' and 'all' are idiotic standpoints, and yet are what most people that are vocal on the subject seem to embrace. Of course, since most of these people have a vested financial interest (i.e., keeping their job) in one or the other extreme answers, their statements should be ignored. But since the media would rather have a chicken little story than anything reasonable, it is only the extremes that the general population hears and must select from when the question comes to the vote.
Indeed, most pollution question have issues that should drive technology into cleaner directions. Fuel efficiency, and sustainable fuels should reduce vehicle pollution. The low yields and short lifespans of hack and burn fields should reduce this practice as the cost-benefit ration gets too high. The increase cost of property for landfills and the increase value of raw recyclable materials should encourage recycling and eventually landfill mining. Especially as the technology for material separation gets better and cheaper. And the health issues, and costs, resulting from particulate emission should drive the way to cleaner diesels, smokestacks, etc.
So, while the 'global warming' issue is what politicians on both sides have chosen to focus on, many of the steps that should be taken for other reasons (and that are *not* debatable in their effects) would automatically take care of the bulk of the global warming (if any) that can be attributed to human actions.
--Pete
Quote:. . . On the other hand, if their paycheck and it's continuance is based solely on whether they return the "correct" results that would be pretty questionable research.And there in lies the failure of science in the modern world. If a person is working in science outside of an academic institution, then that person is almost always expected to support the institution's agenda. Failure to do so will often result in dismissal or at least lack of advancement. There are a few exceptions to this, but they are steadily disappearing or getting away from research and focusing on development.
. . .
For people in academia, the situation is almost as bad. The 'publish or perish' requirement to get tenure (and failure to do so in a 'reasonable' time often means dismissal) combined with the lack of financial support from the academic institution itself, means going to outside sponsors. While many of these sponsors have had axes to grind in the past, the situation has become much more severe under the present administration. As with scientists hired directly by government and industry, those doing research paid by those two entities are pressured into giving the 'right' answers. The penalty for failing to do so is simple, no renewal of funding for existing projects, no funding for new proposals. And, eventually, dismissal from the academic institution for failing at the principle job -- bringing in money.
After tenure is granted, one can at least try to be independent. Of course, with no source of funding not much research can be done. Some experimentalist have turned theoreticians or numerical modelers for lack of funds. Many schools do give a small sum to tenured scientists for 'independent research'. By pooling these funds, four or five scientists *might* be able to get one experiment completed a year, and publish a paper (not cheap in a good archival journal) every few years. Not exactly what most of them dreamed of when they decided to devote their life to science and forgo the financial benefits that their abilities would have probably granted them in business or management.
Back on topic. Global warming is a fact. Besides the temperature record there are numerous other indications. Such as the mismatch of the arrival of migrating birds (whose clues to migration is the length of the day, since they cannot tune in to CNN and see what the weather at their destination is) and their primary food supply (which did know what the local weather was like (being there), and hatched, came out of their cocoon, mated and died, flowered and wilted, or flew away when the weather cues were right). Has the earth been warmer in the past? Hell, yes. Both much warmer and much colder. Has the change been so abrupt as it is now? No real good evidence. Over the period where we can resolve decades long change, no. But that is only a blink of an eye in geologic times. The further back we go, the poorer the temporal resolution (unless we have something like the K-T boundary, and even with the Iridium evidence, there are still people who thing the transition took millenia).
How much of the global warming is caused by the activity of humans? 'None' and 'all' are idiotic standpoints, and yet are what most people that are vocal on the subject seem to embrace. Of course, since most of these people have a vested financial interest (i.e., keeping their job) in one or the other extreme answers, their statements should be ignored. But since the media would rather have a chicken little story than anything reasonable, it is only the extremes that the general population hears and must select from when the question comes to the vote.
Indeed, most pollution question have issues that should drive technology into cleaner directions. Fuel efficiency, and sustainable fuels should reduce vehicle pollution. The low yields and short lifespans of hack and burn fields should reduce this practice as the cost-benefit ration gets too high. The increase cost of property for landfills and the increase value of raw recyclable materials should encourage recycling and eventually landfill mining. Especially as the technology for material separation gets better and cheaper. And the health issues, and costs, resulting from particulate emission should drive the way to cleaner diesels, smokestacks, etc.
So, while the 'global warming' issue is what politicians on both sides have chosen to focus on, many of the steps that should be taken for other reasons (and that are *not* debatable in their effects) would automatically take care of the bulk of the global warming (if any) that can be attributed to human actions.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?