Strong Eagle wrote:Seriously, JR8, your argument is bullshit... funding games in no way affect the vast, vast majority of climate change research.
That is in one opinion, but there is another camp that believes climate 'scientists' are funding-chasers who have been effectively bought to give some credibility to politicians' policies.
I really don't believe in the idea of the 'noble scientist' selflessly working for an entire life, surviving on peanuts. No, they want money, and they want gongs and kudos. It's only human nature I expect.
I remember when I was a student, my personal 'tutor' (assigned mentor from the academic staff) was a wonderfully charming and eccentric DPhil (i.e. PhD from Oxford) in zoology. His whole field was the 'vertical stratification of insects within the canopies of rain-forest trees', and we spent many boozy nights in his orchard testing and tweaking UV illuminated insect traps. Anyway... apart from all the 'good side', he was also a consultant to a UK nuclear authority ('Nirex'??) and had put his name to research that said disposing of spent nuclear fuel down retired coal mines was, sensible and without risk.
My British uncle was a scientist who lived for 30 years in Africa, together with his family. Despite which he was on the payroll of the United States Marine Corps as a Rear Admiral [in a land-locked country lol]. Because ...apparently
[cough], the USMC had a deep interest in bird borne parasites.
I decided not to go into academia as a)I'd probably not pass the exams b)I was told it would be a life of penury, and hence you had to have some form of 'higher calling' to enter it. What I have come to realise is that as with the myth of the 'poor downtrodden farmer', there aren't a lot of nobly poor scientists.
As always: Follow the money.