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 meteorology, their branch of that tree in climatology has been pruned, just as the creationists branch of biology has been pruned. It is a dead end.

I am sure Dr. Gray's contributions to hurricane prediction and behavior will continue to be of benefit, just as Newtonian mechanics is still of benefit in the vast majority of physical applications. But we are not talking about the same thing. Local conditions, even on a large scale, are not the same as global systems, and just as the Newtonian model was pushed aside by Einstein, you're seeing the same thing here. Einsteinian deniers do not have a place in particle physics departments in exactly the same way that creationists do not have a place in evolutionary biology in exactly the same way that warming deniers do not have a place in climatology. We are talking about a specialized subset that happens to be getting all the press because the consequences of changes on that level are enormous.

Are there areas for deniers to go into? Certainly, and if they are good in those fields they should be able to get grants in those fields. While Dr. Gray's comment about grants is conceivable, based on the information already available, which directly and conclusively counters his scientific comments, I fail to see the harm in ostracization from the field of climatology.

The question is not "is it happening?" That one was answered. The questions now are, how much of this has been caused by us, what will the results be, and are there things we can do which will change the trend. And if all someone is doing is going back to rehash the already answered question, they should find a new field, because this one has left them behind.

RE: Gore Gets A Cold Shoulder