The Obama Recovery

[Lectro]

follow up: why doesnt' Svensmark need funding for research?

I was wrong to have said it that way. He needs funding but neither he nor Friis Christiansen can be labeled as "shills for shell" or riding the AGW gravy train to tenure-ship.

Also,you would do well to consider the number and quality of scientist who is no longer in the fray and who sincerely follows their practice of science and are drawing much different conclusions than the IPCC's heavily bureaucratized practitioners.

 

[Lectro]

If Lectro is only going to listen to the thoughts of scientists who "no longer need funding" he will be reading a very, very small and self-selected group. It certainly works for his confirmation bias, something he hypocritically criticizes climate scientists for now.

Certainly is not my argument. My argument has spanned the thoughts on politicized science from Michael Crichton to many ex-green peace types who have come out with strong disagreements with what they freely (and correctly to my mind) label a "religous" belief. A belief that science is somehow "democratic". The true believers find it suddenly inconvenient if one of their ranks over turned the apple cart...even though the history of scientific discovery is example upon example of a single scientist coming along and radically altering the previous paradigm.

So, I tend to think of the climate scientists (those passionate advocates of CO2 being this unstoppable dreadnought) as more like technicians who are constantly tweaking an aging paradigm that is nearing an event horizon - to borrow the heavily used metaphor. We are in process toward a shift in understanding and by all accounts this sort of dispute confirms my own understanding of the Hegelian dialectic process and the way in which history seems to move.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

so your assertion is that scientists doing work with funding from NSF or the National Parks Service or other governmental fund represents a conflict of interest? that seems really strange given the process of application, though I guess you could argue the Reviewers of grant applications could be politically biased...?

 

[Lectro]

so your assertion is that scientists doing work with funding from NSF or the National Parks Service or other governmental fund represents a conflict of interest? that seems really strange given the process of application, though I guess you could argue the Reviewers of grant applications could be politically biased...?

Well, I'm not certain that the label "politicized" fits as it does in the normal sense of when we boil issues down to "Right vs Left." Certainly there are scientists who do view it from a purely ideological perspective and they are on both sides of this issue. Not every scientist speaking at Heartland represents 'big oil' ... If you were to investigate more thoroughly I think you'd come to realize that the vast majority have had to accept that forum as they have been denied access to so many others. It is really akin to opposing an orthodoxy.

The differences I mostly cite are scientific rather than ideological. Scientists who have drawn radically different views based on their own practice of the scientific method. Many scientists believe Svensmark is over stating the Sun's role and dispute his theory based upon their own conclusions in their respective discipline. At the same time Svensmak, Shaviv and many others spar and dispute the predominant theory but do so through scientific as opposed to political method. They are debating the findings of each other's discipline. Science when it is at its best,IMO.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

that's fine but that's not really tied to 'funding'; that's just a scientists inner biases

 

[ONW]

Why is this on the Obama Recovery Thread?

 

[WakeandBake]

forget it, they're rolling