This is completely independent of the article, but the scientific community is cut-throat when it comes to radical ideas. It's part of the vetting process. Just taking a stance as a scientist doesn't make the science behind it worth funding.
Everyone likes the idea of making a name for themselves by "shaking things up", but doing so is a big risk because with everyone wanting to shake things up, there's a lot of shoddy science being done. And that gets shut down quick, simply because there's a lot of people that like to take funding and run with it to try and make a name for themselves. And the more radical, the bigger the headlines, so glamor seekers get shut down fast if their science doesn't prove itself right away. Regarding this article, there's no way to know if they were shut down because their science was bad or if they were shut out just because the establishment closed ranks. I don't know. I do know though that it's human nature to make a fuss when you feel slighted, and that may or may not be all this is. Do you want any nutball with a theory and tenuous methods to prove it getting funding? On 4/12/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thoughts anyone? > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 > > .... > But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists > who dissent from > the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work > derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks > or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even > when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their > basis. > .... > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:203927 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
