quote:Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
My gentle reminder to you is that funding for things scientific is ALWAYS political.
I wish that were not the case but I guess I can't deny that. I happen to put some trust in the self-correcting nature of science. A scientists could become rich and famouns by proving the consensus wrong.
For instance, the consensus is that CO2 levels have a profound effect on temperature. TYhat was the case until just two days ago when a study was published that strongly suggests that CO2 levels have only "about half" the effect that was originally considered.
Headline: Global Warming: Scientists' Best Predictions May Be Wrong Link
Summation: "Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM (a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago. "
Scientists are going goo-goo over this study because it may sway the consensus a little. Good stuff.