It's important to always keep a skeptical eye half open, Frank
M. Carrejo
A small subset of the larger problem is getting all of the
attention and we end up with heroes in white hats and villains
in black hats.
It's unnecessary for the sciences to be so politicized and the
politification of the sciences runs the risk of losing full
objectivity.
There's no harm in raising questions unless the issues have left
the realm of science and moved into another arena, which I think
is his point. Funding has supported greenhouse gas research
since at LEAST the early 1990s that I'm aware of. I was there. I
had scientist friends that complained back on Usenet.
"Can't get damn funding unless I rewrite my paper to include
"and how it relates to global warming" even when it doesn't."
She was studying two types of squirrels in her town. But she did
it.
It's unfortunate that "what is important to study" is influenced
by funding and fads but it is.
This doesn't take away that climate change is real. But appeals
to "the way science is done is pure, unlike these rat bastards
over here" doesn't wash. The practice of science is imperfect
and there's no harm in calling out on it from time to time.
Being United with One Wrong Voice is dangerous no matter what
side-of-the-fence one is on. Better to readjust the results to
take into account the other gases neglected in current models to
get a more rounded image of the threat, one that's still real,
still severe, still a problem, but less dramatized.
Then again, it doesn't matter at this point. Continuing on the
present course towards improving CO2 emissions is probably a
good thing, unless it results in increasing emissions of the
OTHER greenhouse gases in the process. Then we're just delaying
the problem, like switching to "clean burning coal" in the early
80s.
It DID clean up the new york skyline. As a kid, I went from
seeing SMOG to actually, one day, seeing the new york skyline
for the first time, while riding the bus in New Jersey. I'm not
a denier. I'm also not a scientist. I'm also not a die-hard
believer. It's pragmatic to move forward in our current
direction. My belief/skepticism levels don't matter in the
least. Do they? There's no reason for them to do so, at any
level of being a scientist. Who would support them? Chances of
promotion would go to zero. There's no logical reason for a
scientist to even try.
Do I think it's a great threat? Yes I do. Do I think something
needs to be done in a VERY BIG WAY? Yes I do.
So, for pragmatic reasons, I support the fix global warming
causes.
But I'm still disappointed in the politics of the sciences.
That's all. I'm satisfied with the ambiguity and awkwardness of
the situation as it stands. I can still support it without being
fully convinced with the presentation. It's practical. It's the
nature of the beast, Frank. Publish or Perish. Research
published within the same environment will always have a slight
"taint" to it. Doesn't make it invalid. Doesn't make it wrong. I
accept it with its tea stains on the paperwork and confirmation
biases when they show up.
It's still "good enough" science. Global Politics reduced
scientific objectivity. That doesn't mean invalidated. But it
reduced it.
