Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

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.

Funny, most scientists that I know are post-docs (no job security), PhD students (like me). In most science labs that I know (and I know a few), tenured profs are less than 10% of the people doing research. And they normally are swamped in administrative/political tasks.

I would argue the exact opposite: for the vast majority of scientists that I know, job INSECURITY is the norm. So, pandering to get accepted (ie published) is quite common.

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.

This is not my line of reasoning at all. I work in both conservation genetics (think species near extinction) and malaria epidemiology - I profit nothing from money going to hard sciences. I am just drawing attention to 2 issues: a) computational prediction models are unreliable in many situations and b) scientists are not saints.

And singling out climate science as having political attention lavished upon them is misleading in any case.

If climate science is not having political attention, than I cannot think of any area in science which is on the political radar.

But my point is not just climate scientists. If you go to some maths departments, or medical departments (just to cite a few), much funded research is justified on "climate change". The scientific community at large is reaping some (funding) benefits from climate awareness. So, I am just suggesting that scientists might be (consciously or unconsciously) quite happy with the climate scare status quo.

Again, I have no opinion on the issue of climate change in itself. I have not studied it, so I am as neutral as you can find. What I am just saying is that on the basis of predicative computational models arguments are unreliable.

by t-------------- on Fri Aug 1st, 2008 at 01:59:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series