Science Policy and Public Awareness

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 5 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]358297[/snapback]</div>

So if GW is hype do all these scientist keep their jobs?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 5 2006, 08:47 PM) [snapback]358307[/snapback]</div>

GW is not hype. Get a clue.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 5 2006, 08:50 PM) [snapback]358309[/snapback]</div>

Maybe I should rephrase; if Global Warming is proved to not be catastrophic, the funding will probably not be there. Will they keep their jobs?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 5 2006, 11:58 PM) [snapback]358314[/snapback]</div>

I guess in the same sense that if the world does indeed prove to be flat, globe makers will be out of a job.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Dec 5 2006, 09:09 PM) [snapback]358320[/snapback]</div>

On one hand, this is true. On the other, Congress has control of our funding, and for the past 6 years, they have been uninterested in our data. The Earth Science budget has been trimmed again and again so that we have a minimal staff to do the work we need to do. We have to continually justify our work to receive small amounts of funding to keep us going. When our instrument dies or we loose funding, we will indeed be out of a job, at least on this project. There is plenty of money going to Mars stuff though so many of us will probably shift over there. Fortunately though, we are about to have a major shift in the political make-up of Congress so there is hope for us, but the lead time for this type of project is ~15 or 20 years, so most of us will soon be looking for other work, no doubt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 5 2006, 09:41 PM) [snapback]358326[/snapback]</div>

That sucks, but the Mars project sounds really interesting. Maybe you could start a "Global Warming on Mars" hype and see if the taxpayers will fund that one next. Definite possiblity with the new Congress in power.



Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 5 2006, 10:17 PM) [snapback]358333[/snapback]</div>

No some of the Mars stuff is good but the direction Bush is sending us is stupid, IMO. We should be putting money into saving our planet instead of trying to send people to Mars. I'll leave the company before I work on that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 5 2006, 10:41 PM) [snapback]358337[/snapback]</div>

I think the plan is to prep Mars for habitation by all the folks afraid of a warming earth. All the remaining people who like it warm will stay here. :lol:

Seriously though - I think the point about the press over-hyping this is well taken. It is the boy crying wolf and now most people aren't sure what to believe after being inundated with some pretty outlandish claims. Not to say we shouldn't be concerned - but if the coming catastrophe is as big as has been claimed in some quarters, there's not much that will save us. On the other hand, if it is a more likely 1.8*C temp. change by 2100, it's a bit hard for most folks to get too anxious about it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 5 2006, 10:41 PM) [snapback]358337[/snapback]</div>

Hmmmmm, good point too bad we don't have the money because a lot of good has come out of the tech discovered from the space program.



Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 6 2006, 01:17 AM) [snapback]358333[/snapback]</div>

I think Mars has been pre-warmed for us -- or maybe Humans were there millions of years ago and look at the mess they left :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Dec 5 2006, 11:36 PM) [snapback]358345[/snapback]</div>

Here is the problem: The temperature has changed 1 or 2 degrees over the past 100 years. But that has set in motion a series of events that are accelerating the temperature rise. For example, as the snow line in the Arctic recedes, the surface brightness is reduced. Since the white snow reflects energy back to space, having less snow cover means more energy absorption.

Here's another interesting thing. During the rapid rise of industrialization pollution was becoming a huge issue. Our factories were spewing out particles into the atmosphere that were unhealthy for us to breath, and seeded cloud formation and came back down as acid rain. So we put standards in place to reduce these aerosol emissions. But ironically, these aerosols were actually helping to cool the Earth. (One reason is that cloud formation can act to cool the Earth because clouds are white but this gets complicated because clouds also insulate the heat.) So, temperature rise from greenhouse gases was mitigated by pollution of all things, and thus the reduction in this pollution has helped accelerate the temperature rise. Believe it or not, there was a scientific conference a week or 2 back, where one of the leading scientists suggested releasing aerosols in the atmosphere as a way to overcome GW. He suggested it only to illustrate the severity of the problem we are facing, but it actually is being taken seriously as a possible mitigation.

So there are 4 things going on. (1) Population explosion; (2) Increased per capita effect on temperature rise (somewhat mitigated by Kyoto); (3) Feedback mechanisms which amplify the temperature rise; and (4) Feedback mechanisms that reduce the temperature rise.

It's true that we don't know that much about the severity of the damage we have done. But there is no doubt that we have done grave damage, and that we can slow it down, and easily.

But we have a powerful opposition: the oil industry, who essentially owns our government. So the only solution, for now, is for each of us to do what we can as individuals.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 6 2006, 02:12 AM) [snapback]358349[/snapback]</div>

I totally agree but we've got bigger issues right now that are getting ignored.

 

lots of fields are having a rough time funding-wise. without funding to pay salaries, people lose their jobs- plain and simple.

it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the research.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Dec 6 2006, 06:31 AM) [snapback]358388[/snapback]</div>

Your telling me that theres no fudging the data or findings by scientist to retain funding for their pet projets!?! :lol:



Wildkow



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Dec 6 2006, 07:22 AM) [snapback]358407[/snapback]</div>

I don't believe the earth is that old and although you can make more money in the private sector there may just not be enough positions there to fill the number of job seekers.

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000023.html

http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/...10615071248.htm

Wildkow

p.s. Your sites all require a subscription which I generally shy away from on account of spam and junk mail.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 6 2006, 02:30 PM) [snapback]358511[/snapback]</div>

How does that saying go? Something like...it's better to let people think you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 6 2006, 10:30 AM) [snapback]358511[/snapback]</div>

Yes, the ones funded by Exxon (and other oil comanies) have no scruples and when Exxon pulls the plug on them they will have to change careers because their reputations are ruined. Then again, they've probably made enough money from the oil companies to be set for life already, so they probably don't care.

In the realm of science, reputation is everything, and most scientists are scrupulous to a fault. To imply that all of them are in cahoots on GW is ludicrous. As I explained already, funding of the ones I work with is controlled by Congress, and the Congress we currently have in power does not believe in GW and does not want to hear evidence supporting it. Therefore, if staying funded was their goal, they'd all be claiming GW does not exist. But staying funded is not their (primary) goal; reporting accurate science is.

Regarding Exxon's funding of bad science, here is a letter Senators John D. Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe to the Exxon CEO on October 30: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.p...er-snowe-exxon/
"ExxonMobil is not alone in jeopardizing the credibility and stature of the United States. Large corporations in related industries have joined ExxonMobil to provide significant and consistent financial support of this pseudo-scientific, non-peer reviewed echo chamber. The goal has not been to prevail in the scientific debate, but to obscure it. This climate change denial confederacy has exerted an influence out of all proportion to its size or relative scientific credibility. Through relentless pressure on the media to present the issue “objectively,” and by challenging the consensus on climate change science by misstating both the nature of what “consensus” means and what this particular consensus is, ExxonMobil and its allies have confused the public and given cover to a few senior elected and appointed government officials whose positions and opinions enable them to damage U.S. credibility abroad."

And then here is the WSJ editorial response to the letter yesterday:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110009338
"This is amazing stuff. On the one hand, the Senators say that everyone agrees on the facts and consequences of climate change. But at the same time they are so afraid of debate that they want Exxon to stop financing a doughty band of dissenters who can barely get their name in the paper."

And finally, here is an article from October's Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...&sc=I100322
"The Wall Street Journal editorial page has for years railed against these scientific findings on climate change, even as the global consensus has reached nearly 100 percent of the scientific community, including the reports commissioned by the skeptical Bush White House.
...
Reporters for the Wall Street Journal routinely distance themselves from the editorial page. Many of the paper's own reporters laugh or cringe at the anti-scientific posture of the editorials, and advise the rest of us simply not to read them. Nevertheless, the consequences of those editorials are significant. The Wall Street Journal is the most widely read business paper in the world. Its influence is extensive. Yet it gets a free pass on editorial irresponsibility."

 

Yes. Most of those claiming scientists have to fudge results don't understand how science works. The whole point of published scientific results is that the method of experiment is described thoroughly so that OTHER scientists can repeat your experiment to verify the results. Fudged results are inevitably exposed (see the case of Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk for example).

This is why most published examples disputing global warming occur in media other than scientific journals, and, most frequently, in editorials or as published opinion pieces. On the one hand, scientific, peer-reviewed articles. On the other, opinions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 5 2006, 10:17 PM) [snapback]358333[/snapback]</div>

Mars is warming, with ice melting (at least according to my copy of Astronomy Magazine about three months ago).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 7 2006, 02:27 AM) [snapback]358772[/snapback]</div>

Is there updated information? I tried to find something on mars warming and found an interesting discussion on realclimate at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 from about a year ago, but nothing more current.

Though the new story of flowing water on mars from metorite strikes is really exciting.
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4747

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 7 2006, 06:29 AM) [snapback]358822[/snapback]</div>

I'll have to dig out the issue ... I think it was the October issue, which came out in late August or early September of this year. The context of the news "blurb" had nothing to do with GW, but with observations of Mars. I actually posted about it here, and someone answered with some more detail ... I'll try to find that post too.