Scientific drilling and climate change

[Schwob]

As a person who's been trained in science, it's... interesting to see the total disconnect)(or lack of understanding of science) illustrated by some of the posts here.

Crappy diving style and possible (local) damage to coral has nothing, zero, nada to do with the quality of the science and the quality of the data per se. Yes, the guys should have been more careful when they took their samples. But global warming is... global. Damage to coral is local. Local damage has very little to do with global phenomena. If anything at all.

Dismissing the science done based on the field behavior of a couple of clumsy researchers (probably young PhD students) is - at best - short-sighted.

I don't think you meant me, but who knows. Why be vague and not be specific when complaining?
For what its worth, as an engineer with a good amount of scientific training and as a person, who often gets to help our scientists grasp reality, I claim I have a decent & working understanding how science works. I see good science. I see good but misguided science. And I see bad science, perpetuated to keep people employed and research going.
I am not saying, nor did I say this is the case here.
But I am not seeing much purpose in anyone claiming science is always misunderstood by "the public". Any scientist worth their salt would refrain from such generalisations.

So, yes, Wookie did make too general of a statement early on. Did he not qualify it a bit better later in the thread?

My point was more along the lines of that even good scientists need to take care to lead by example and source their stuff with alpropriate care, wnsuring that their own guidlines are followed. If yhey dont do this, they indeed still may be doing good science. For me, personally, they then however, despite the good science they still may be doing, they may not be good scientists anymore because of their lackadaisical sourcing practises.

I do agree that global warming and potential localised damage done mechanically as illustrated in the pictures are two entirely different things.

But I don't have to like a scientist or a scientists hired or volunteer help doing such damage any more than individual or hordes of careless divers ... or governmemts rebuilding reefs into military instalations or...

So do the science without adding to the damage total if and wherever possible. Certainly this could have done better here. As Wookie described in quite some detail.

 

[RyanT]

And I see bad science, perpetuated to keep people employed and research going.

This is another example of a statement regarding science that is continually perpetuated, but is not true. Perhaps I missed something along the way, if so, I would love to see some evidence of this.

 

[BRT]

As a person who's been trained in science, it's... interesting to see the total disconnect)(or lack of understanding of science) illustrated by some of the posts here.

Crappy diving style and possible (local) damage to coral has nothing, zero, nada to do with the quality of the science and the quality of the data per se. Yes, the guys should have been more careful when they took their samples. But global warming is... global. Damage to coral is local. Local damage has very little to do with global phenomena. If anything at all.

Dismissing the science done based on the field behavior of a couple of clumsy researchers (probably young PhD students) is - at best - short-sighted.

The problem is that people who are doing much more damage than average are trying to convince average people to change their lifestyle.

 

[RyanT]

The problem is that people who are doing much more damage than average are trying to convince average people to change their lifestyle.

Perhaps Al Gore has a substantially bigger carbon footprint than the average folk. I don't know, I haven't actually seen his electric bill. If true, indeed that would make him a hypocrite. That doesn't, however, change the reality of the last few decades of science.

 

[BRT]

Perhaps Al Gore has a substantially bigger carbon footprint than the average folk. I don't know, I haven't actually seen his electric bill. If true, indeed that would make him a hypocrite. That doesn't, however, change the reality of the last few decades of science.

Al uses more energy in jet fuel each year than my total personal and business use in 10 years.

 

[RyanT]

Al uses more energy in jet fuel each year than my total personal and business use in 10 years.

Perhaps that is true. But Al Gore is not a scientist. Whatever he says or does has zero bearing on the science at hand.

 

[Schwob]

This is another example of a statement regarding science that is continually perpetuated, but is not true. Perhaps I missed something along the way, if so, I would love to see some evidence of this.

You are imho highly unreasonable if you expect anyone in need of holding a job to reveal anything like that. Ever, anywhere, any company, government, military or research institution. In some peoples cases more than a job or a carreer would be at stake.

Doubt as much as you want, I've seen it go both ways. I've seen millions of $s blown out the window. Not based on hindsight, but against better advise.for shall we say "alternative reasons"

I've seen it, I've lived it, I contributed toward fixing it and correct it (a very unthankful thing BTW) and unfortunately also was innefective in doing so.
It is what it is. In what I was exposed to all started out very well meaning. Then things are at stake. Then, sometimes things change a bit...

Requesting some sort of proof that would require someone to bite the hand that feeds them and / or to give up their lively hood is at best somewhat well meaning in a naive way. It also would be impossible to do w/o putting years worth of proprietary information in mix and trying to explain it all to layman in that particular matter. A quite unrealistic expectation I would say.

Anyway, I am glad that where you work all is good and nothing ever gets done, justified or perpetuated because of "alternative motives". Good for you. I am glad for you.

I assure you, not all are or always have been in that position.
And I assure you I will not ever provide any proof of any such thing ever. The nature of the beast typically is that one signs a whole bunch of agreements not to and has good reasons to honor those.

Man, just look at what you.wrote:

This is another example of a statement regarding science that is continually perpetuated, but is not true.
Really? You make a statement about your experience and that the constitutes some sort of universal truth for all science everywhere and if someone else relatetes their experience it is less or not valid somehow? Just how self righteous are you with your all knowing all encompassing experience?

Perhaps I missed something along the way, if so, I would love to see some evidence of this.
Well, maybe you do non confidential and non proprietary research and / or science and have the luxury to provide evidence to whatever you desire. What makes you think that's the case everywhere?
c'mon...
So, in case you were missing that:
No chance of any evidence forthcoming from me.

 

[RyanT]

More to the point... One of the things hear a lot is that "scientists are perpetuating the myth of climate change in order to line their pockets with grant money." Some derivations of this include things like granting agencies "knowing that climate change isn't real" but continuing to fund the projects to maintain jobs.

This is patently false. First, on the granting front, a University scientist can only take two months salary from the grant (they two months during the summer that they do not get paid by their University). If they are a federally employed scientist, they can't take any salary. So if you are a University scientist and get one grant for 100k, you can get two months of summer salary. If you get 5 grants totaling 20 million, you can get two months of summer salary. Scientists are not getting rich from grants.

Second, funding rates from the main funding agencies, (e.g. NSF and NIH) are at historic lows. No one at any agency is giving out money, just to keep people employed. In fact, the program officers at NSF have told me one of the most difficult jobs they have, is telling labs who are on the verge of shutdown, that they will not be funded. Given such low budgets, the agencies are looking to fund the best science they can get for their money. As an individual scientist, a sure fire way to get money in climate science right now would be to submit a grant proposal with solid preliminary data showing that climate change is not happening.

Third, the agencies and program officers have no financial incentive to fund bad science. The people working there don't get paid more or less depending on what they fund. In addition, Congress has full access to funding decisions and the budgets of grants that are awarded. When grants are awarded to individual scientists, their home institution then manages the grant, overseeing every penny of spending.

So perhaps I should have qualified my post by specifying the public sector. I don't have experience in private sector science. In the public sector, however, there is no science being perpetuated to line pockets or maintain jobs.

 

[Schwob]

More to the point... One of the things hear a lot is that "scientists are perpetuating the myth of climate change in order to line their pockets with grant money." Some derivations of this include things like granting agencies "knowing that climate change isn't real" but continuing to fund the projects to maintain jobs.

This is patently false. First, on the granting front, a University scientist can only take two months salary from the grant (they two months during the summer that they do not get paid by their University). If they are a federally employed scientist, they can't take any salary. So if you are a University scientist and get one grant for 100k, you can get two months of summer salary. If you get 5 grants totaling 20 million, you can get two months of summer salary. Scientists are not getting rich from grants.

Second, funding rates from the main funding agencies, (e.g. NSF and NIH) are at historic lows. No one at any agency is giving out money, just to keep people employed. In fact, the program officers at NSF have told me one of the most difficult jobs they have, is telling labs who are on the verge of shutdown, that they will not be funded. Given such low budgets, the agencies are looking to fund the best science they can get for their money. As an individual scientist, a sure fire way to get money in climate science right now would be to submit a grant proposal with solid preliminary data showing that climate change is not happening.

Third, the agencies and program officers have no financial incentive to fund bad science. The people working there don't get paid more or less depending on what they fund. In addition, Congress has full access to funding decisions and the budgets of grants that are awarded. When grants are awarded to individual scientists, their home institution then manages the grant, overseeing every penny of spending.

So perhaps I should have qualified my post by specifying the public sector. I don't have experience in private sector science. In the public sector, however, there is no science being perpetuated to line pockets or maintain jobs.

Fair enough.

 

[RyanT]

Fair enough.

Indeed, and your post was an eye opening and a reminder that science includes more than just the public sector that I know.