Stefanie wrote:

One of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works." Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the Earth.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said. He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science. "It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

Well first things first, he's wrong about the grants. People like Exxon give grants too, so that's not right. His statement about human influence on the atmosphere is also demonstrably incorrect (see here for a great example. There may be arguments against Al, but this guy missed the boat.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Well first things first, he's wrong about the grants. People like Exxon give grants too, so that's not right.

You sound like a Republican. :) In the U.S., at least, almost all basic science funding is federal. The argument that Exxon gave out a grant or two as a response to an accusation of bias in terms of federal grant awards is no more reasonable than the argument that California is funding stem cell research as a response to complaints about the federal ban on funding for said research. Let them eat cake?

I don't know much about climate science but I do know a bit about materials, where catch phrases like "nanotechnology" are used to raise money for research projects which, while important, have nothing to do with atomic assembly and machinery, and I also know a bit about quantum physics, where catch phrases like "quantum teleportation" fool politicians who think they are paying for research into star trek transporters. One does not have to be a "Global Warming denier" to conclude that the threat of Global Warming might be used in a misleading way by the atmospheric science community in order to raise money for projects that don't really relate to it. This works regardless of what you are studying or what results your funding sources expect.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Well first things first, he's wrong about the grants. People like Exxon give grants too, so that's not right.

You sound like a Republican. :) In the U.S., at least, almost all basic science funding is federal. The argument that Exxon gave out a grant or two as a response to an accusation of bias in terms of federal grant awards is no more reasonable than the argument that California is funding stem cell research as a response to complaints about the federal ban on funding for said research. Let them eat cake?

I don't know much about climate science but I do know a bit about materials, where catch phrases like "nanotechnology" are used to raise money for research projects which, while important, have nothing to do with atomic assembly and machinery, and I also know a bit about quantum physics, where catch phrases like "quantum teleportation" fool politicians who think they are paying for research into star trek transporters. One does not have to be a "Global Warming denier" to conclude that the threat of Global Warming might be used in a misleading way by the atmospheric science community in order to raise money for projects that don't really relate to it. This works regardless of what you are studying or what results your funding sources expect.

Tom, you're obfuscating the point. Virtually no one on the scientific side continues to say the earth is not getting hotter, and a slightly larger minisculity (yes, I invented a word to make a point) says people have nothing to do with it. The people that do are being rightfully tossed to the side of the road to land next to the flat earthers, creation scientists and intelligent designers. The difference here is the same as the issues pushed by those creationists and designers, they find someone who goes along with them, pump their message into a megaphone and yell that there is "controversy!"

I call bullshit. There is argument about the level of human involvement, the size of the impact, but the question about it happening is dead. The question about it is what happens next. Do we get continued warming and worldwide coastal flooding? Does continued warming cause the gulf current to break and plunge the northern hemisphere into an ice age ala "The Day After Tomorrow." Nobody knows the answers to those questions. What we DO know is that those results are going to be not beneficial to what we know of now. Full continental drought in North America? That's entirely possible. Doing modeling of something like this is a lot of guesswork, and the historical data for what comes next is inferential.

Saying people on the other side of the issue don't get money though is baloney. Distracting the topic, with something clearly disprovable (and disproven) is grand theft oxygen, and we want it back so we can get on with a discussion of how to actually fix the problem.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Saying people on the other side of the issue don't get money though is baloney. Distracting the topic, with something clearly disprovable (and disproven) is grand theft oxygen, and we want it back so we can get on with a discussion of how to actually fix the problem.

How can an example of funding that is presented specifically as part of an agenda driven lie be used as evidence that serious scientists who don't share this consensus view can get funding for their research from serious funding sources? My point is that pointing at exxon is the exception that proves the rule. If people who don't share this consensus view have to turn to dishonest politically motivated organizations in order to fund their research, then obviously he is correct that they have been ostracized from the mainstream scientific community and they are unable to get normal grants for their work.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Saying people on the other side of the issue don't get money though is baloney. Distracting the topic, with something clearly disprovable (and disproven) is grand theft oxygen, and we want it back so we can get on with a discussion of how to actually fix the problem.

How can an example of funding that is presented specifically as part of an agenda driven lie be used as evidence that serious scientists who don't share this consensus view can get funding for their research from serious funding sources? My point is that pointing at exxon is the exception that proves the rule. If people who don't share this consensus view have to turn to dishonest politically motivated organizations in order to fund their research, then obviously he is correct that they have been ostracized from the mainstream scientific community and they are unable to get normal grants for their work.

The reason the money dried up from "real" sources is because it's garbage and everyone knows it's garbage. You don't see "real" universities funding research into "creation science" either. Does that mean we should turn around and start giving money to those people to research their pablum? No.

When someone puts forth an off the wall idea (Alvarez and the dinosaur killing asteroid for example) it may spend some time getting scant notice, but as more evidence comes to light which can support the idea (and eliminate others, like the iridium layer) you see more funding gravitate towards the idea, not because it's topic du jour but because it fits the data, and other options do not.

Global warming is real. That isn't being questioned seriously anymore, the evidence for it is overwhelming. What is now at question is how much of it is human caused, and what can be done to arrest it, human caused or not. Wasting time and money rehashing the dead debate about its existence takes away from trying to do something about it, and that can be genuinely harmful.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
The reason the money dried up from "real" sources is because it's garbage and everyone knows it's garbage.

You don't seem to understand the argument that he is making. He is not arguing that he cannot receive a grant to fund a study which would prove that global warming doesn't exist. If you think that is what this story is about you are completely missing the point. He is arguing that if he publicly states that he doesn't agree with the consensus view on global warming he will not receive grants at all for anything. Do you understand the difference between these two things? They are completely different things. He is also asserting that there are a large number of scientists who do not agree with this consensus view who are afraid to speak out because they fear that if they express their opinions they will be unable to continue to practice their profession. The practice of their profession does not necessarily involve running studies that disprove global warming. Meteorologists do all kinds of things besides study global warming. All that work is not necessarily "pablum" just because you have a different opinion on a particular issue than they do. He is arguing that these people are not allowed to do those things if they do not tow the party line on this issue. Ultimately he is suggesting that the "scientific consensus" would be less clear if it wasn't for these political pressures that are driving a conformity of opinion.

You don't see "real" universities funding research into "creation science" either. Does that mean we should turn around and start giving money to those people to research their pablum? No.

First, there is a significant difference between "creation science" and people who don't agree with the consensus view that human activity causes global climate change. The former requires a violation of several core aspects of the scientific method. It requires conflating theories with hypothesis and attempting to collect evidence for something which is unmeasurable by definition. The later is merely a question of what conclusions you think that the data demonstrates. Its not magical.

Second, I seem to recall a number of creationists in the math department at my university. Creationists are not ostracized from participating in science.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
The reason the money dried up from "real" sources is because it's garbage and everyone knows it's garbage.

You don't seem to understand the argument that he is making. He is not arguing that he cannot receive a grant to fund a study which would prove that global warming doesn't exist. If you think that is what this story is about you are completely missing the point. He is arguing that if he publicly states that he doesn't agree with the consensus view on global warming he will not receive grants at all for anything. Do you understand the difference between these two things? They are completely different things. He is also asserting that there are a large number of scientists who do not agree with this consensus view who are afraid to speak out because they fear that if they express their opinions they will be unable to continue to practice their profession. The practice of their profession does not necessarily involve running studies that disprove global warming. Meteorologists do all kinds of things besides study global warming. All that work is not necessarily "pablum" just because you have a different opinion on a particular issue than they do. He is arguing that these people are not allowed to do those things if they do not tow the party line on this issue. Ultimately he is suggesting that the "scientific consensus" would be less clear if it wasn't for these political pressures that are driving a conformity of opinion.

You don't see "real" universities funding research into "creation science" either. Does that mean we should turn around and start giving money to those people to research their pablum? No.

First, there is a significant difference between "creation science" and people who don't agree with the consensus view that human activity causes global climate change. The former requires a violation of several core aspects of the scientific method. It requires conflating theories with hypothesis and attempting to collect evidence for something which is unmeasurable by definition. The later is merely a question of what conclusions you think that the data demonstrates. Its not magical.

Second, I seem to recall a number of creationists in the math department at my university. Creationists are not ostracized from participating in science.

If the original article were written in the manner quoted, then I might agree with you in this case. It is not. The "quote" takes sections from various parts of the article and strings them together by which I can certainly see where you would get that impression, but his comments about grants are a final afterthought to the article, and not in the context given.

I would agree that if the global warming deniers were not able to work in other fields there would very much be an issue, and while they may have places in other branches of meteoro... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]