If I submitted a paper with legitimate results showing that climate change was not occuring or that it was not linked to greenhouse gases, I would make the front page of science and nature, every newspaper in the world and be inundated with funds from various places.
Scientists are in the business of doing research, how the results defend or rebut a hypothesis are inconsiquential. Even if those results go against conventional wisdom, church teachings, public opinion, or industrial might. Malcolm McCallum On Wed, October 10, 2007 1:14 pm, Wil Burns wrote: > This has to be one of the more inane postings I've seen in a while here: > > 1. If you want to cash in on climate change, you'd actually be a skeptic. > There's way too many people competing for university and foundation grants > if you support this "radical" thesis. By contrast, if you want to be a > skeptic, there's an array of corporate-fronted foundations that will > bestow > cash on you, so your thesis is internally illogical; > 2. Oh, so ozone depletion isn't a concern anymore? Funny, we had a hole > 1.5 > times the size of North America last year over the Antarctic, and the > Dobson > unit measurements in some places well below 100. Well, why should we worry > about a few million additional cases of potentially lethal skin cancer? > You're right, just another fad by those greedy scientists. wil > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Cherubini > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:43 AM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: Scientists versus activists > > Maiken Winter wrote: > >> How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible >> resistance among scientists to get active? > > Because scientists are in business to perform research > and publish or they will perish. In decades past, scientists > who wrote grant proposals that showed how their proposed > research was relevant to the envrionmental crisis fad of the > time (e.g. impact of industrial and agricultural chemical > pollutants on the environment, impact of GMO foods, etc) > were more likely to get funded. > > In recent years, scientists who wrote grant proposals that > showed how their proposed research was relevant to the > current crisis fad (climate change) were more likely > to get funded. > > When the grant getting advantage of linking proposed research > to climate change wears off it, scientists will come up with a > novel new crisis that helps keep the grant money rolling in. > > In 5-10 years the everyday discussions on ECOLOG-L will > likely be about a new "crisis" and climate change will > no longer be a dominant concern anymore just like > concern over ozone holes, acid rain and GMO foods > has faded away. > > Paul Cherubini > El Dorado, Calif. > Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
