07-01-2009, 09:36 PM
Hi,
First person, speaking of aircraft/spacecraft: "Do you know what makes these go up?"
Second person: "Why, just the aerodynamics alone . . . "
First person, interrupting: "Funding makes these go up. No bucks, no Buck Rogers."
Anyone who has not played the research game cannot know just how evilly true that exchange is. Much like a politician who isn't elected, a program that is not funded is useless. And just like most politicians will do anything to get elected, most researchers will do anything to be funded. From many years of experience, I can tell you that if you were to go to a funding agency and say, "Global warming *might* be a problem, and I'd like funding to examine it.", the last thing you'd hear as the door hit your but would be gales of laughter. But if you walk in saying, "Global warming is the biggest threat there is and will kill us all, soon.", the odds are that you'll walk out with a check.
No conspiracy, just the funding equivalent of natural selection. And any movement generates the opportunists ready to take advantage. Again, no conspiracy, just your basic parasitism.
Don't expect the scientific community to research unpopular (and thus, unfunded) positions much. There are few scientists that are willing to sacrifice a career for principle. That's why even pacifists work at national laboratories.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think we scientists are any worse than anyone else -- just no better. And I don't doubt global warming, but I'd love to see more unbiased evidence from people whose livelihood does not depend on generating scare models.
--Pete
Quote:Scientists all over the world have been warning for decades that this is urgent business; are they all in it together with these (supposedly) carbon-corrupt politicos?In the movie The Right Stuff there is an exchange, used twice, that goes more or less:
First person, speaking of aircraft/spacecraft: "Do you know what makes these go up?"
Second person: "Why, just the aerodynamics alone . . . "
First person, interrupting: "Funding makes these go up. No bucks, no Buck Rogers."
Anyone who has not played the research game cannot know just how evilly true that exchange is. Much like a politician who isn't elected, a program that is not funded is useless. And just like most politicians will do anything to get elected, most researchers will do anything to be funded. From many years of experience, I can tell you that if you were to go to a funding agency and say, "Global warming *might* be a problem, and I'd like funding to examine it.", the last thing you'd hear as the door hit your but would be gales of laughter. But if you walk in saying, "Global warming is the biggest threat there is and will kill us all, soon.", the odds are that you'll walk out with a check.
No conspiracy, just the funding equivalent of natural selection. And any movement generates the opportunists ready to take advantage. Again, no conspiracy, just your basic parasitism.
Don't expect the scientific community to research unpopular (and thus, unfunded) positions much. There are few scientists that are willing to sacrifice a career for principle. That's why even pacifists work at national laboratories.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think we scientists are any worse than anyone else -- just no better. And I don't doubt global warming, but I'd love to see more unbiased evidence from people whose livelihood does not depend on generating scare models.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?