Dear All, Two things: An anecdote about Climate Change credibility: The myth that we've all signed on to global warming out of fear of having our funding cut by Al Gore's international syndicate or whoever isn't coming out of nowhere. It's intentionally propagated. About three years ago, my then-adviser at my small university in southeast Tennessee gave a little talk on global warming- on its mechanisms, possible effects, how to stop it, the whole shebang- to the local Kiwanis Club (well, may have been the Rotary, it was some old school, small business, civic engagement type group, it matters not) and met with a rather strange response. Global warming and climate science are not his speciality- we're biogeochemists- and global warming ties in only tangentially, as a crucial and complicated side effect of ongoing carbon cycles- but he talked about the science, and some about how it tied in with his own work. This, weirdly, lead to a question and answer session that was mostly about academic grant funding and where his research money came from, which is a damn weird subject for the tail end of a talk addressing the science behind global climate change. Evidently, the man who had been there the week before to talk about Evil Global Warming had not talked about science at all. Out of some kind of spirit of evenhandedness, they had booked some D.C. lobbyist group (my advisor wasn't clear on the group, but i'm betting it was Citizens for Consumer Choice), and he never mentioned atmospheric chemistry, radiative forcing, ancient carbon- none of it. No science at all. It was explained as a sort of ongoing conspiracy, that we all had to pretend Global Warming was real, or we'd never get research funding. My advisor basically laughed at this, and mentioned how, yes, he'd throw in a line or two about the impact of carbon cycles on atmospheric carbon and global warming' influence on climate change, but it was far from relevant to his line of work, and anyhow, here was the mechanism behind it. I don't know that he changed a lot of minds in an instant, but he certainly made them consider their sources a little more carefully. //// Second Question: I heard an NPR piece the other night on something called "DIY bio" ,which is some kind of loose confederation of molecular / micro biologists working on a range of projects, and I was wondering if anyone on here would have more information about these groups, how they select their research objectives, and who would be a good person involved with these folks for me to talk to about a project. Thank you, Inigo Howlett
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:56:10 -0600 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc > To: [email protected] > > Climate change has to happen. With respect to temperature, over any > period of time temperature will go up...or go down..on average as > compared with any other period of time. > > That human activities, specifically, the release of CO2 into the > atmosphere, will have serious consequences is a prediction that simply > has not borne out. Acid rain had obvious consequences that did not > require very weak tedious statistical arguments, for example. > > The CO2 caused greenhouse effects predictions simply did not happen, > and that's the problem with the current climate change debate. Maybe > they could occur in the future, but as we deplete fossil fuel reserves > and normal economic forces move us away from fossil fuels, the potential > is much less than it was in any event. > > My problem with this is that we have done good work in educating people > on the effects of atmospheric pollution, and as a result have had a > great effect on industrial methodology and related technologies; > reducing emissions of serious pollutants. We risk exchanging our > credibility on real issues for what looks like politically motivated > extremism on the CO2 issue. > > If the CO2 argument is to be validated in any meaningful way, related > models have to make accurate elegant predictions. So far they have > failed, and mainly are used to "explain" past events; and as such > represent little more than classic pseudo science. > > > "So easy it seemed once found, which yet > unfound most would have thought impossible" > > John Milton > ________________________________________ > > Robert G. Hamilton > Professor of Biology > Department of Biological Sciences > Mississippi College > P.O. Box 4045 > 200 South Capitol Street > Clinton, MS 39058 > Phone: (601) 925-3872 > FAX (601) 925-3978 > > This communication may contain confidential information. If you are > not the intended recipient or if you are not authorized to receive it, > please notify and return the message to the sender. Unauthorized > reviewing, forwarding, copying, distributing or using this infomration > is strictly prohibited. > > >>> "Raffel, Thomas" <[email protected]> 12/23/2009 8:15 AM >>> > > Of course ecologists try to link their research to climate change! > Everyone wants their research to sound (and hopefully be) important, and > climate change is clearly important. Just as acid rain is important, > and species extinctions, and the hole in the ozone layer. And yes, this > is partly motivated by a desire for funding, but also by a desire to > continue doing research on important questions. I see nothing wrong > with this. > > Claiming that global warming is a fraud because scientists use it as a > buzz-word to get funding is absurd. Next they'll say that cancer is a > fraud, because molecular biologists and chemists use it as a buzz-word > to help obtain funding. I wonder if even the tobacco companies ever > stooped so low. > > Tom Raffel > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:24 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc > > ECOLOG: > > One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate > change research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a > major motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are > often cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, "all you > have to do to get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' > 'global warming,' or some similar buzz-phrase." > > To what extent do you think this might be true? > > WT > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.430 / Virus Database: 270.14.101/2555 - Release Date: > 12/22/09 08:09:00 _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/
