[Coral-List] Coral Reef Curmudgeons

[Ulf Erlingsson]

Good point, Steve. The same holds in my academic backbone. Since the  
idea was first advanced in the 80's the then professors considered it  
a devise by the meteorologists--who had no good research agenda on  
their own--to get more funding, by stepping into the realm of long- 
established scientific traditions that have studied climate change  
for a century at least. Namely the geologists. Who, in general, have  
never accepted anthropogenic climate change as a serious issue mostly  
because natural variability is much, much larger.

The danger with this focus is that it detracts attention and funds  
from more important research. But that has largely been lost in the  
debate.

It seems that the "gate-keepers of the truth" who prevent an open  
scientific debate on this issue sometimes are the self-appointed  
"skeptics", who--probably unintentionally--end up defending belief  
against science while trying to do the opposite.

Something to think about: Would things be better if the highest  
ranking science publications were academic journals edited by fellow  
scientists, rather than Nature and Science, which are really  
journalistic publications?

Ulf Erlingsson
Lindorm, Inc.
SediMeter.com


On 2010-09-20, at 22:55, Steve Mussman wrote:

>   PC is really a matter of relative perspective.
> In my surroundings a believer in anthropogenic climate change
> is held in contempt. No matter, what is lacking and much needed
> is the clear articulation of a scientific opinion on the issue.
> Scientists can either support their viewpoint under vigorous
> peer review or not. Is everyone so sensitive that they tremble
> at the thought of having to transparently defend their beliefs?