Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-18-2011, 05:14 AM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,201,063 times
Reputation: 3321

Advertisements


Rick Perry: 'Substantial Number' Of Climate Scientists Have 'Manipulated Data' For Money - YouTube

 
Old 08-18-2011, 05:30 AM
 
Location: The Milky Way Galaxy
2,256 posts, read 6,933,892 times
Reputation: 1520
I'm not taking either side on this but is it so far-fetched that scientists need money to sustain their livelihoods and careers as well? Given how the economy has been depressed for the past 5 yrs or so I'd be making up research too if it meant another $100,000 grant to continue my "studies" for the next year.

And PS, since your rant is against Perry you're better off taking this up in the Politics forum.

Last edited by mgt04; 08-18-2011 at 05:41 AM..
 
Old 08-18-2011, 06:06 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,795,636 times
Reputation: 17862
If you're under the impression money and politics do not play a major role in science you're being naive, do you know what happens to funding for scientists if "there is nothing to see here".

While on the topic the claim is often made about the all the money the oil and gas industry will lose but that's peanuts compared to what is at stake with schemes like cap and trade and converting to renewables.
 
Old 08-18-2011, 07:29 AM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,201,063 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgt04 View Post
I'm not taking either side on this but is it so far-fetched that scientists need money to sustain their livelihoods and careers as well? Given how the economy has been depressed for the past 5 yrs or so I'd be making up research too if it meant another $100,000 grant to continue my "studies" for the next year.

And PS, since your rant is against Perry you're better off taking this up in the Politics forum.

And you would get canned for doing so, as would any scientist. NASA scientists get paid annual salaries to analyze data. They have a vested interest in serving the public by producing reliable data and data anlysis. THAT is what they are paid to do. And most of the funding for their work comes directly from NASA. It's a salaried job. They don't always need grants to do this. University scientists for the most part DO need grants. But so what? Archaeologists need grants. Geologists need grants. Physicists, biologists, historians, and medical researchers need grants. You aren't going to tell me that all of them are making up their research just to get grants, are you? They don't get grants to produce a specific result. I would find it very hard to believe that a cancer treatment that actually works, research on better forecasting, or research to build better dams is entirely (or even partially based) on made up science. They could produce a null result and the data would still have value.

Climate scientists use the same science, and very often the same analytical tools that many other branches of science use, including computer science, physics, meteorology, and geophysics, and yet the ony ones I see attacking those professions are right wing religious fanatics who are anti-science in the first place. And I think that if Perry actually believes that the thousands of scientists around the world are collectively faking their data, then perhaps he should put his money where his mouth is an call for an international investigation of the scientific grant process (personally I think it is a serious problem for his credibility as a leader that he would make such unsubstantiated claims). Funny how these conspiracy theories have been around for a number of years now, and yet no one in any serious leadership position has called for any such an investigation with the possible exception of a handful of American right wing politicians, who talk the talk but never walk the walk.

But if you want a conspiracy theory, you have to look no further than those who DON'T want this research to be conducted and presented to the public, and that would be the global energy corporations who have a vested interest in trying to convince the public that manmade emissions are not a problem (note that Texas is dead last in the remediation of pollution generated within their borders. Gee, I can't imagine why).

P.S., since his stated opposition to the science behind AGW is not only a political issue, but one that affects every scientist in the field, I think that it is very appropriate to post it here in the science forum. If the moderators believe differently, they are welcome to move it. But I am a geologist and would like to have a science discussion about how politics is adversely affecting the science and the publics perception of it, which is what his rant is doing, and why we need leaders that have at least an inkling of an understanding of scientific issues, and are willing to address them in a reasonable, professional fashion.
 
Old 08-18-2011, 07:47 AM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,201,063 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
If you're under the impression money and politics do not play a major role in science you're being naive, do you know what happens to funding for scientists if "there is nothing to see here".

While on the topic the claim is often made about the all the money the oil and gas industry will lose but that's peanuts compared to what is at stake with schemes like cap and trade and converting to renewables.
As a geologist, yes I do know what happens if they acheive a null result. Most often, they simply move on to the next project. Null results have as much and often more value than one that produces positive results. And this issue is not about cap and trade. It is about telling the truth about the data.

But please, inform us what the cost of converting to renewables is compared to what will be lost if AGW ruins our crops and croplands, wipes out the forests, dries up the land or floods it, or melts the ice caps, acidifies the oceans - the largest ecosystem (and renewable resource) on the planet, or washes away our shorelines and cities and the resulting impacts on human and animal populations. Is that a legacy we want to leave for our grandchildren to contend with?

Sooner of later will will run out of oil. Alternative energy resources are not a luxury. They are going to be a necessity, and we'd better plan for the eventuality now rather than later, or the cost will be far higher. Too much is at stake to leave it to uninformed leaders with an anti-science agenda and a record for allowing industry to foul the waters, soil, and air of their state.
 
Old 08-18-2011, 08:48 AM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Ohio
17,107 posts, read 37,957,687 times
Reputation: 14444
Closed for mod review. Your assigned moderator will be along shortly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top