Jeez, I shouldn't hit the send message while I'm dozing off. I kept trying to rewrite the last sentence despite intermittent bursts of unconsciousness. The next-to-last paragraph should have read:
You seem to be saying that people are eager to give scientists money all the while knowing that we saboteurs will find ways to add discomfort to their lives. In my experience, people have never been all that willing to embrace prophets spreading the gospel of trial and tribulation. Given that the solutions to many of the environmental problems we face will require some (significant) sacrifice by society, an analysis of historical data suggest that it is not the best business model to depending on public support for further statements of gloom and doom. Later, Dave ------------------------------------------------------ David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com ------------------------------------------------------ "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David M. Lawrence Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:47 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Climate change funding Hmmm, What about the alternative hypothesis, Cherubini? What if the majority of scientific opinion is motivated by the collective perception, based on scientifically verifiable (and repeatable) analyses, that indicate a number of environmental problems require serious attention? I'm not getting a damn dime of that massive amount of research money you claim is skewing scientists' perceptions of problems, but I for the most part tend to side with the majority consensus that certain issues, such as climate change, habitat loss and degredation, over-exploitation of natural resources, etc., etc., are worthy of greater consideration by scientists as well as society at large. Not only am I not getting that money -- I'm not seeking it, either. So it appears, at least in my case, that your broad-brush hypothesis cannot fit all of the available observations. Given that, it may be that your hypothesis should be rejected or subjected to some revision -- namely, that some issues are seen as important by the scientific community because, well, they are important. When society makes decisions on how to best allocate its scientific resources, shouldn't those resources be primarily aimed toward those problems that appear most pressing? You seem to be saying that people are eager to give scientists money all the while knowing that we saboteurs will find ways to add discomfort to their lives. In my experience, people have never been all that willing to embrace prophets spreading the gospel of trial and tribulation. Given that the solutions to many of the environmental problems we face will require some (significant) sacrifice by society, an analysis of historical data suggest that it is not the best business model depeding on public support for further statements of gloom and doom is no the best for scientists. If said business model IS flawed, then the argument that scientist see problems beause of their funding potential is equally flawed. Dave ------------------------------------------------------ David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com ------------------------------------------------------ "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
