Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Also, being cynical, one could discuss the interest of the scientific community at large in global warming: It is a good justification for more funding. In fact, many research that I know of has global warming as a rationale (in many different areas of science).

Come on! Most of the science people doing global warming are tenured professors. As long as they keep publishing something, don't steal the coffee money and don't sleep with their students, they have damn good job security. And unlike - say - high energy physicists, they don't need ridiculously expensive equipment either.

Now, if you want to talk about getting more research funding for political purposes than can be scientifically justified, let's talk about CERN, LHC, nanoscience and materials science. Oh, and the people who like to shoot fancy (and expensive) gizmos into space.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with those areas of science. They're all interesting and worthwhile to pursue. But they're punching way above their purely scientific weight when it comes to funding. Climate science may or may not be over-emphasised funding-wise compared to the rest of geophysics, but geophysics as a whole certainly is not. And singling out climate science as having political attention lavished upon them is misleading in any case.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 1st, 2008 at 10:35:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series