Re: Scientists versus activists
Wil Burns wrote: 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; I agree many scientists today - probably thousands - are competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly available climate change grant money. And that's my point - that climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists. Here are just are few of many available examples of the kind of money being allocated: HSBC To Donate $100 Million For Climate Research http://tinyurl.com/37n9kj $9 million to fund climate research http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/2/16/9MillionToFundClimateResearch By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists who make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming by more than a few years. But to get back to Maiken Winter's original questions: How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible resistance among scientists to get active? I would suggest Maiken take a look at this US Senate Committee Minority page website http://tinyurl.com/36jyvw that provides detailed information on the views of 12 prominent scientists who used to be members of the catastrophic man-made global warming camp and are now skeptics. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Scientists versus activists
I am very puzzled by Paul Cherubini's suggestion that increases in climate change research funding has been a recent a financial [sic] windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists. The term windfall has built-in negative connotations that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out there waiting to exploit this real-world problem, and thus are indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution. I take very strong issue with such an assertion, if that was the intent. By extension, would it be suggested that Bill and Melinda Gates' new initiative on Grand Challenges in Global Health (http://www.gcgh.org/Projects/) provides a similar kind of windfall for human health researchers, rather than being viewed as creating a much-needed investment in research directed in improving human well-being? Val Smith Professor University of Kansas At 12:52 PM 10/12/2007, Paul Cherubini wrote: Wil Burns wrote: 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; I agree many scientists today - probably thousands - are competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly available climate change grant money. And that's my point - that climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists. Here are just are few of many available examples of the kind of money being allocated: HSBC To Donate $100 Million For Climate Research http://tinyurl.com/37n9kj $9 million to fund climate research http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/2/16/9MillionToFundClimateResearch By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists who make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming by more than a few years. But to get back to Maiken Winter's original questions: How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible resistance among scientists to get active? I would suggest Maiken take a look at this US Senate Committee Minority page website http://tinyurl.com/36jyvw that provides detailed information on the views of 12 prominent scientists who used to be members of the catastrophic man-made global warming camp and are now skeptics. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. Val H. Smith Professor Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045 785-864-4565 FAX: 785-864-5321 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scientists versus activists
Actually, most of the $100 million of the HSBC climate change money is for long-term conservation projects, not research per se. HSBC is not setting itself up along the lines of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or the NSF but filling in a genuine gap for work on restoration, remediation, planning, and adaptation. On Oct 12, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Paul Cherubini wrote: Wil Burns wrote: 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; I agree many scientists today - probably thousands - are competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly available climate change grant money. And that's my point - that climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists. Here are just are few of many available examples of the kind of money being allocated: HSBC To Donate $100 Million For Climate Research http://tinyurl.com/37n9kj $9 million to fund climate research http://daily.stanford.edu/article/ 2005/2/16/9MillionToFundClimateResearch By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists who make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming by more than a few years. But to get back to Maiken Winter's original questions: How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible resistance among scientists to get active? I would suggest Maiken take a look at this US Senate Committee Minority page website http://tinyurl.com/36jyvw that provides detailed information on the views of 12 prominent scientists who used to be members of the catastrophic man-made global warming camp and are now skeptics. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Scientists versus activists
Val Smith wrote: The term windfall has built-in negative connotations that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out there waiting to exploit this real-world problem, and thus are indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution. I take very strong issue with such an assertion, if that was the intent. Here is what some climate scientists themselves have say: http://tinyurl.com/27eozg David Legates, Delaware state climatologist: There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey. Reid Bryson: If you want to be an eminent scientist, you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.' Legates tells students who are not global-warming true believers, If you don't have tenure at a major research university, keep your mouth shut. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Scientists versus activists
competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly available climate change grant money. And that's my point - that climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists. This hardly constitutes an economic windfall. These researchers, who are engaging in peer-reviewed science, are hardly driving new sports cars because a couple of institutions have donated money for climate research. The NSF funding rate for many grants has decreased in recent years, due to budget cuts by our current administration. Presumably, if a research project doesn't get funded (and many don't), then the PI picks a different project. Given that it takes a good ten years of education before someone's ready to do independent research, I hardly think today's climate scientists were in the wings a decade or more ago plotting for ways to bring climate change to the forefront so they'd have job security. The in funding was brought about by the science, not the other way around. By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists who make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming by more than a few years. I thought that the purpose of applying for federal research dollars was not to use the funds to promote a particular agenda, but to test an hypothesis? Respectfully, Jacquelyn Gill
Re: Scientists versus activists
Val and Wil, Lets be open minded, I think Paul may have a point here; I myself spent 7 years in graduate school studying effects of acid rain on forest and tundra nutrient cycles receiving $11K - $18K annually of NSF funded taxpayer dollars. As a Post-Doc the windfall was more than doubled and that doesn't include the transportation to and from Antarctica not to mention the weekly phone calls to my wife for 6 months. So all told I have gleaned nearly $300,000 over 12 years to study global change, and only had to pay for cross country relocation 3 times!. The money devoted to the topic has grown so large that literally hundreds of newly minted PhDs compete vigorously for the dozens of faculty positions through which future funding will be provided. In fact I have grown so affluent from scientific funding that I am able to retire early and pursue a career as an adjunct professor at a local community college. Why do you think the 3000 plus IPCC scientists devoted their free time over the last 28 years? Obviously, so they could divide up the millions in Noble Prize money. I pity those poor dozen skeptics who now have only Western Fuels and King Coal to look to for research funds. David Bryant On Oct 12, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Val Smith wrote: I am very puzzled by Paul Cherubini's suggestion that increases in climate change research funding has been a recent a financial [sic] windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists. The term windfall has built-in negative connotations that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out there waiting to exploit this real-world problem, and thus are indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution. I take very strong issue with such an assertion, if that was the intent. By extension, would it be suggested that Bill and Melinda Gates' new initiative on Grand Challenges in Global Health (http://www.gcgh.org/Projects/) provides a similar kind of windfall for human health researchers, rather than being viewed as creating a much-needed investment in research directed in improving human well-being? Val Smith Professor University of Kansas At 12:52 PM 10/12/2007, Paul Cherubini wrote: Wil Burns wrote: 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; I agree many scientists today - probably thousands - are competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly available climate change grant money. And that's my point - that climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists. Here are just are few of many available examples of the kind of money being allocated: HSBC To Donate $100 Million For Climate Research http://tinyurl.com/37n9kj $9 million to fund climate research http://daily.stanford.edu/article/ 2005/2/16/9MillionToFundClimateResearch By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists who make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming by more than a few years. But to get back to Maiken Winter's original questions: How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible resistance among scientists to get active? I would suggest Maiken take a look at this US Senate Committee Minority page website http://tinyurl.com/36jyvw that provides detailed information on the views of 12 prominent scientists who used to be members of the catastrophic man-made global warming camp and are now skeptics. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. Val H. Smith Professor Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045 785-864-4565 FAX: 785-864-5321 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scientists versus activists
Hello all, Another note: Dr. Bryson can't be speaking on this issue from personal experience, as he's been retired for twenty years. A couple of individuals who aren't actively engaging in peer-review science aren't the best examples to cite. .j. Jacquelyn Gill Graduate Research Assistant Jack Williams Lab University of Wisconsin - Madison Department of Geography 550 North Park St. Madison, WI 53706 608.890.1188 (phone) 608.265.9331 (fax) - Original Message - From: Houlahan, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:12 pm Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Scientists versus activists To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Hi Paul and all. These are an odd set of statements from two tenured and well-funded skeptics of human-induced global warming. Jeff Val Smith wrote: The term windfall has built-in negative connotations that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out there waiting to exploit this real-world problem, and thus are indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution. I take very strong issue with such an assertion, if that was the intent. Here is what some climate scientists themselves have say: http://tinyurl.com/27eozg David Legates, Delaware state climatologist: There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey. Reid Bryson: If you want to be an eminent scientist, you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.' Legates tells students who are not global-warming true believers, If you don't have tenure at a major research university, keep your mouth shut. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. Jeff Houlahan Dept of Biology University of New Brunswick Saint John PO Box 5050 Saint John New Brunswick E2L 4L5 Canada telephone (office): (506) 648-5967 telephone (department): (506) 648 -5565 fax: (506) 648-5811 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scientists versus activists
Paul says: There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey. Common sense says: There's a lot more money to be saved by taking measures to counter man-induced global warming emissions and then being wrong about climate change in comparison to the amount of money (and lives) that would be lost if we say this is a bunch of hooey, doing nothing, and then being wrong. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Houlahan, Jeff Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:51 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Scientists versus activists Hi Paul and all. These are an odd set of statements from two tenured and well-funded skeptics of human-induced global warming. Jeff Val Smith wrote: The term windfall has built-in negative connotations that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out there waiting to exploit this real-world problem, and thus are indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution. I take very strong issue with such an assertion, if that was the intent. Here is what some climate scientists themselves have say: http://tinyurl.com/27eozg David Legates, Delaware state climatologist: There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey. Reid Bryson: If you want to be an eminent scientist, you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.' Legates tells students who are not global-warming true believers, If you don't have tenure at a major research university, keep your mouth shut. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. Jeff Houlahan Dept of Biology University of New Brunswick Saint John PO Box 5050 Saint John New Brunswick E2L 4L5 Canada telephone (office): (506) 648-5967 telephone (department): (506) 648 -5565 fax: (506) 648-5811 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scientists versus activists
Jacqueline, Those climate scientists are probably not driving new sports cars, since = Paul Cherubini has repeatedly explained to this list in the past that = ecologists (if not climate scientists)--generally described by him as = affluent--generally live in over-sized houses and drive gas-guzzling = SUV's. I'm sure there are some ecologists who do. Based on that, I = highly respect everything Paul says. I won't even touch on the DDT = topic. Respectfully where respect is due, Dave Whitacre, apparently one of the few ecologists sans SUV and with a = modestly-sized house competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly available climate change grant money. And that's my point - that climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists. This hardly constitutes an economic windfall. These researchers, who = are engaging in peer-reviewed science, are hardly driving new sports = cars because a couple of institutions have donated money for climate = research. The NSF funding rate for many grants has decreased in recent = years, due to budget cuts by our current administration. Presumably, if = a research project doesn't get funded (and many don't), then the PI = picks a different project. Given that it takes a good ten years of = education before someone's ready to do independent research, I hardly = think today's climate scientists were in the wings a decade or more ago = plotting for ways to bring climate change to the forefront so they'd = have job security. The in funding was brought about by the science, not = the other way around.=20 By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists = who make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming by more than a few years. I thought that the purpose of applying for federal research dollars was = not to use the funds to promote a particular agenda, but to test an = hypothesis?=20 Respectfully, Jacquelyn Gill
Science, ethics, and professionalism Re: Scientists versus activists
Evidence, evidence, evidence! However, cannot one set aside the distracting tedium and get down to the question of whether or not academic institutions (not to mention individual researchers) are so grant-driven that education and research has suffered to some extent thereby? If so, to what extent? Significant or insignificant? I make no judgment on the global warming issue or any other particular issue--that's where one needs the specific evidence. WT There are two kinds of professional; one puts the work first, the other the buck. At 12:37 PM 10/12/2007, Val Smith wrote: I am very puzzled by Paul Cherubini's suggestion that increases in climate change research funding has been a recent a financial [sic] windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists. The term windfall has built-in negative connotations that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out there waiting to exploit this real-world problem, and thus are indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution. I take very strong issue with such an assertion, if that was the intent. By extension, would it be suggested that Bill and Melinda Gates' new initiative on Grand Challenges in Global Health (http://www.gcgh.org/Projects/) provides a similar kind of windfall for human health researchers, rather than being viewed as creating a much-needed investment in research directed in improving human well-being? Val Smith Professor University of Kansas At 12:52 PM 10/12/2007, Paul Cherubini wrote: Wil Burns wrote: 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; I agree many scientists today - probably thousands - are competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly available climate change grant money. And that's my point - that climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists. Here are just are few of many available examples of the kind of money being allocated: HSBC To Donate $100 Million For Climate Research http://tinyurl.com/37n9kj $9 million to fund climate research http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/2/16/9MillionToFundClimateResearch By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists who make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming by more than a few years. But to get back to Maiken Winter's original questions: How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible resistance among scientists to get active? I would suggest Maiken take a look at this US Senate Committee Minority page website http://tinyurl.com/36jyvw that provides detailed information on the views of 12 prominent scientists who used to be members of the catastrophic man-made global warming camp and are now skeptics. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. Val H. Smith Professor Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045 785-864-4565 FAX: 785-864-5321 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scientists versus activists
If you go to the used car lot, and you see a car you like do you trust the used car salesman, or do you ask a mechanic for his expert advice? Who is more reputable on the car (assuming they aren't connected in some way?). With the same reasoning, who is more credible? A climate scientist who will get his grants and pubs whether or not climate change is taking place, or a polluter who has vested interests in the results? Its common sense to me. The tobacco companies denied cancer, others denied PCBs, later all kinds of economic catastrophies were portrayed by the industries using CFCs, and now its green house gases. Greed does not care about need. On Fri, October 12, 2007 5:55 pm, DAVID WHITACRE wrote: Jacqueline, Those climate scientists are probably not driving new sports cars, since = Paul Cherubini has repeatedly explained to this list in the past that = ecologists (if not climate scientists)--generally described by him as = affluent--generally live in over-sized houses and drive gas-guzzling = SUV's. I'm sure there are some ecologists who do. Based on that, I = highly respect everything Paul says. I won't even touch on the DDT = topic. Respectfully where respect is due, Dave Whitacre, apparently one of the few ecologists sans SUV and with a = modestly-sized house competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly available climate change grant money. And that's my point - that climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists. This hardly constitutes an economic windfall. These researchers, who = are engaging in peer-reviewed science, are hardly driving new sports = cars because a couple of institutions have donated money for climate = research. The NSF funding rate for many grants has decreased in recent = years, due to budget cuts by our current administration. Presumably, if = a research project doesn't get funded (and many don't), then the PI = picks a different project. Given that it takes a good ten years of = education before someone's ready to do independent research, I hardly = think today's climate scientists were in the wings a decade or more ago = plotting for ways to bring climate change to the forefront so they'd = have job security. The in funding was brought about by the science, not = the other way around.=20 By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists = who make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming by more than a few years. I thought that the purpose of applying for federal research dollars was = not to use the funds to promote a particular agenda, but to test an = hypothesis?=20 Respectfully, Jacquelyn Gill Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scientists versus activists
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]
Scientists versus activists
Dear all, One issue in the states which I don't understand is, why the other side is mostly a lot more outspoken, and has a lot more aggressive strategies to get their point across. The urgency of combating climate change is huge, we are risking not just our children's future, but our own. But I see very few ecologists and conservation biologists who actually do something about it. I hear arguments that as scientists we must be careful not to loose credibility. So therefore scientists mustn't be advocates. That is a huge loss in our struggle to educate and activate people, because - as a questionnaire in Alaska showed - 82% of all asked people believe scientists more than any other entity (media, politicians, family, neighbors). We NEED you all urgently to help educate people in time, especially in the states before the next election. And it also is not true that scientists would loose credibility. For example, Carl-Friedrich von Weizsaecker was a very highly esteemed physicist in Germany, and a strong advocate for peace as well. How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible resistance among scientists to get active? One scientists told me, he doesn't have enough information to do anything. Well, then get informed! This is about the future of our planet, not about a phone interview! Yesterday, Tim Flannery gave a statement to an IPCC report that will come out next month: http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/23740 He states that we are dangerously close to the tipping point or even passed it. What needs to happen before scientists speak up? I dream that we as scientists get together and create a huge movement on all universities, before the UN Bali conference this December, to show our governments that we demand drastic and immediate action. What are we waiting for? Is another publication, another grant proposal really more important than our future? Shouldn't we at some point reconsider priorities and our way of evaluating our work? Thanks for reading, Maiken Cornell Lab of Ornithology and presenter of The Climate Project (www.theclimateproject.org)
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.
Re: Scientists versus activists
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.
Re: Scientists versus activists
The argument that scientists push issues like climate change to get money has always struck me as completely absurd. Where are financial interests really aligned? Certainly not on the side arguing against fossil fuel based energy interests. I wonder who makes more money; Richard Lindzen, with his automotive industry endowed chair, or James Hansen. Given the consulting Lindzen does I've got a guess but oh no, Hansen must be in it for the grants. Ridiculous. There is a lot of money out there for people willing to conduct research, credible or otherwise, disputing the consensus view on climate change. Maybe, instead of scientists pushing fear-mongering agendas to get funding like characters in a Crichton novel, the reality is that human caused climate change is an actual issue. Oh and the ozone layer is still an issue but the actual action on the issue (decrease in CFC use) pushed it from the limelight. Also, for example in regards to acid rain, scrubbers are decreasing sulfur emissions, coal use is going down etc. Same with many of the other issues you mention: action (arguably not enough) has already been taken. This country in particular has yet to take necessary action on the issue of climate change. Ned Dochtermann Quoting Paul Cherubini [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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.
