VinnieK

Oh, drat and curses, rumbled at last. That's right. In the late 1970's the current crop of established climate scientists deliberately went into what they knew to be a rubbish, underfunded field, specifically with a plan to convince the world that every one would die if they weren't bought shiny research labs. That's exactly how it happened. And somehow, no one cottoned on except very special people just like you. Grab your tiara Cinderella, it's time to become the princess you always were at heart.

Ah, but if they're not getting vast sums of money, what are they getting in return for their efforts towards bringing the new world order upon us? I imagine there's some kind of secret sexy dungeon located in a sub-basement that doesn't appear on any of the building's plans, a vat of coco pops that's constantly replenished by sinister government minions, and a say in who tops the music charts. Hey, being mental turns out to be quite fun.

Scientists in academia are paid a more or less standard wage. Around £30,000 to £40,000 a year for a lectureship. They get no extra pay for research, nothing for publishing papers in journals, and even nothing for peer reviewing articles for journals. Is that clear enough for you? No, because climatology has always been of scientific interest for a number of decades, most obviously for meterological purposes. The question that comes to my mind is why can't you answer these questions for yourself? The information is all easily accessible, with everything from how science is funded, typical salaries for scientists, what funding pays for and the conditions on receiving funding, even details of individual grants, it's all there on the internet. Yet you ask on here, with more than a little insinuation bubbling under every word, incapable of answering anyone else's questions with anything close to resembling an original thought, analysis or even a hint that you've reflected on the topic you've commented on never mind actually engage in the discussion. Have you been sent here to test our faith in democracy, as some kind of latter day book of Job dealio?

Okie Dokie, one last time, and I'm going to spell this out for you this time. We're going to go nice and slow, but nevertheless do try to hold on to something nice and tight so you don't stumble or fall along the way. How can funding act as a cause of corruption and conspiracy amongst researchers, when they don't actually directly benefit financially from it? Now, don't answer too quickly. There's a dependent clause in that question, and we don't want you getting a headache. Let it sink in for a moment and consider this analogy: say you're appointed milk monitor, but you find you can't carry enough milk cartons to distribute it around the class in the required amount of time . All seems lost, but then, one day you have a mighty fine idea! You ask the teacher, Miss Grumblebums, if you can buy a nice new satchel in which to carry them around with you. Miss Grumblebums then gives you five whole pounds to buy such a satchel, on the condition that you provide a receipt and any change left over, and that the satchel remains in school when not in use. You take the five pounds and head down to old Mr Unclebungles satchel, bag, and other loose form container emporium, and, wouldn't you know it, he's got exactly the right thing in stock, all for five pounds exactly! . You then return to class, a skip in your step and a brand new bag over your shoulder, ready to monitor milk like no milk has been monitored before. Now, the question is this: how worried should the rest of the class be that you are a corrupt and complicit shill of Miss Grumblebums, who some rumour to have a plot to kidnap children in order to harvest their organs and sell them on the underground transplant market? Turn to page 53 if you want to go East, turn to page 15 if you want to eat the enchanted pineapple, and just f*** it all to hell if you still can't figure it out.

Jesus. The point is, they're irrelevant questions: pull a figure out of your arse and let's call it that. It's still not evidence of the corruption and conspiracy" you're looking for, since the researcher does not gain personally from the award. If you're actually worried about corruption, and I mean genuinely concerned about it and not just using it as a convenient mask behind which to hide some ill thought out ideological opposition to the idea of climate change itself, you would be concerned about some of the anti-global warming campaigners personally receiving money from oil companies, than an academic receiving a grant that only covers the cost of his or her research. But then you're not are you?

So are you saying that the field of climate science in particular has not been subject to massive funding and research grants over the past 20 years? Do you have any idea how much money has been flushed into this area? Oh noes, {Admiral Ackbar voice}IT'S A TRAP!!!{/Admiral Ackbar voice}. This has already been dealt with. How exactly do you think research grants work, that some guy writes a few equations and personally receives twenty grand for his efforts? Here's what happens: Dr/Professor X submits a research proposal to a research council, including anticipated costs. Said research council reviews the request, judges the merit of the proposal and so on, and, in some (by no means all) cases awards a grant. Now, let's have a look at those costs: Firstly, you need research staff. Often you're going to have to hire postdoctoral research assistants (that is, PhD graduates who don't currently hold a lecturship or reader position in another institution) with the required specialisms from outside of your department. Say the research requires two or three assistants for a two year period. That alone will cost anywhere between £100,000 to £200,000. Now, if you're handling vast amounts of data requiring specialist coding or programming skills, or lab work, you also need a technician to help out with that, which might bump the figure up another £50,000 for the two year period. Ok, so that's up to a quarter of a million just employing up to four other people for the duration of the project, then you might take into account travel costs if you're collaborating with other academics across the world, or use specialist facilities (which is likely to cost more money). Then there's a question of what equipment is needed, and so on and so on. So, after all that, how much money does the scientist who submitted the actual grant application get? Nothing, zilch, not a bean. He or she gets paid their usual wage by whatever institute they are a member of, and contrary to what some people might think, the wages in academia aren't brilliant compared with similarly qualified professionals or those working in private industry (which is the whole damn reason that the UK suffers from academics and scientists either migrating into the private sector or other countries). This kind of nonsense argument about funding wouldn't even be so bad, but the funding for climate science isn't even that amazing! For instance, a cursory glance at the funding council's websites shows that the director of the CRU recently received a grant for £132,000 (spread across three years). Ooh! That's a lot of money, there must be something fishy there, eh? But wait! A researcher at Oxford was recently awarded £348,155, almost double the previous figure, for a project called "Icons and Innovation in South West China's Religious Texts". Go on then, what nefarious government scheme to enslave and dupe us all is that money funding? What's more is that this is pretty much peanuts compared with what medical, biomedical, and pharmaceutical research pulls in, where awards are often in terms of millions rather than hundreds of thousands of pounds. Research is expensive, that's the bottom line of it and research funding (as the name suggests) pays for that and nothing else. It's something of a moot point anyway (as I said no one personally gains financially from research money). Nevertheless, when you have seen these figures about research funding and so forth, did you never once think "hm. I wonder where that money goes, what can it be for, and am I really sure that it's such a lot of money compared with how much might get pumped into other disciplines?" before leaping to the conclusion that it was a clear indication of skullduggery? Despite my reservations about some of the e-mails' contents, this kind of outlandish grasping at straws, wilfull ignorance and outright attempts at slander that so characterizes the arguments of those who so viscerally oppose many climate scientists is nothing short of shameful, especially when they are now often accusing the CRU of indulging in the kind of tactics and behaviour of which they themselves are often all too guilty.

I'm referring mainly to academic research in general. If you want to make money in academia, you're better off going into something like medicine or a business school than the sciences, including climate science.

I think the new criteria is that if it doesn't involve a bunsen burner and results can't be expressed solely in terms of a single, albeit complicated equation, it's not science. Not to mention spending what amounts to eight years or so training, only to often end up shuffling about the country living on short term postdoc contracts before finally landing a job that turns out to be as much pain in the arse admin work as it is actually doing what you want to do. Science is a labour of love - big Government barely pays enough to even make the job itself worthwhile, never mind encourage corruption and conspiracy.

Not really, that's certainly the way it's being pitched by the more veherement side of the debate, but I suspect that there's actually very little there that you can point to as indicating a true fudge. Even the now infamous "hiding the decline" quote isn't really as cut and dried as it first sounds - for instance, if you're trying to merge models that are accurate at different points in time but the merging introduces some kind of anomaly (judged against real data) where they join, it's reasonable to try to get rid of that anomaly by putting that data in. What you're removing or hiding isn't 'real', but an artificial byproduct and requires modification in order to preserve accuracy. It's complicated, but I do think it's a little unfair to suggest corruption in this case - in effect it would be similar to someone saying that you must be biased in your job one way or the other based on where and how Manx Radio gets its money, and holding up a selected number of quotes sympathetic to this argument as proof! There have been some ridiculous claims regarding the funding of the CRU and in particular its director. I remember seeing one person citing that he got X amount of money from the HEFCE, for instance, as if it were paid into his personal bank account to do with as he wishes. In fact, HEFCE money goes to the department, not individuals, and is used primarily for teaching undergraduates and so forth, with some money going to research. Similarly, very few people ever get rich off research money: you write a research proposal, declare what facilities and sundries you'll need to complete that research, and the funding councils (might) award you a grant to pay for it. In short you'd have to be a complete fool if you went into academic research in order to get rich, especially by questionable means. There is a political element to it, in that the research funding councils ultimately answer to the government who do exert influence over what is and isn't funded, and it's true that a big part of academic reputation is based on a proven track record when it comes to attracting funding. However, this is complicated by the fact that the major measure of success and reputation is via publications and how many times you get cited by other researchers. The major journals which publish scientific papers are in fact private businesses, and they are generally very cautious about the veracity of what they publish precisely because any fraud or fudging that goes onto their pages is likely to harm their business considerably, and similarly other researchers would be very wary of citing an author who's been caught fiddling the books. In other words, falsifying data carries a huge risk and spells sudden death for your career if caught, for little if any tangible benefit even in the short term. To my mind the CRU affair isn't so much about climate change directly, and more about PR: I very much doubt there has been any fiddling going on with regards to the research, the problem being more that the content of the e-mails can appear or be made out to suggest that there has been some conspiracy or trickery afoot at the level of research. That there has been such behaviour is really very unlikely, and I believe that where questions are raised by those emails it's really with regards to how the CRU people were dealing with those who were attacking them (and it has to be remembered that the e-mails released suggest that these guys were getting a lot of abusive e-mails, verging on threats, in addition to being virtually slandered). My gut instinct is that some of the comments in the e-mails were misguided, and the FOI business is a little troubling, but it doesn't imply dishonesty, a general malice, or that the research was fixed.

I'd say not without some justification. Regardless of the mitigating factors, it is hardly edifying to see scientists closing ranks when it comes to FOI requests (even if they've been filed by crackpots and lunatics), talking about trying to influence the editors of journals, proposing boycots of others, and so on. It's true that this doesn't come close to resembling a conspiracy, with all the stigma and connotations of that word, but that doesn't mean that it's nothing more than impolite mischief either. As Terse has said, people are sick of what can appear to be an authoritarian moralising streak in the establishment. Contrary to what I've seen claimed elsewhere, I don't think that people are inherently anti-science, but they have become anti-establishment and, like it or not, a fair portion of academia and academic research is a part of that establishment, even more so than before with the new funding strategy that's currently being implemented in the sciences. To be honest, who can blame them? For the past twenty or thirty years we've been barraged with warnings that if we don't change our behaviour this way or that the sky will fall, and each and every time the public has complied they have yet another crisis and the accompanying demands for sacrifice thrust upon them. Sure, the overall message has been justified and the advice good, but the way it has been delivered and enforced over the decades has succeeded primarily in creating a populace fatigued and exhausted from hopping from one predicted catastrophe to another and weary of anything a government or those close to it have to say. In view of this setting, and taking into account how the reputation of politics has suffered over the years and particularly this past decade, it is possible to see how some could now see climate scientists as being politicized, closed off and averse to 'transparency', and actively engaged in using their influence to silence or frustrate critics. Now, of course the 'other side' has engaged in dirty tactics, but that's not the point; climate science is on the defence here, both scientifically and morally, and if that battle is going to be won it requires being whiter than white and cautious to the extreme about playing into the other side's hands, which is exactly what has happened with the release of these e-mails. Even were we to accept that humans being what they are will always stray from the straight and narrow every so often, the kind of discussions that took place in the hacked files should never have appeared in their institutional emails where not only are they subject to FOI, but pose a nice obvious target for hackers who disgree with their line. Again, the CRU seems to have been painfully naive in trying to make their case. The e-mails feature one discussion of the dodgy science being used to discredit the climate change model, concluding with something along the lines of "thankfully, the prestige press wont fall for this", as if the battle for people's hearts and minds is even taking place in the pages of the broadsheets, which have little of the influence they once did. To my mind this smacks of the kind of attitude that still thinks it's the 1950's when the majority of the great unwashed will naturally defer to political and professional elites and when papers like The Times set the agenda for the political classes. So far we've seen little in the way of a reaction but a couple of press releases, and a whole lot of yammering on a few climate change websites that reltively few will read with a view to finding out what's going on.

The FOI stuff clearly shows someone's made a mistake. It'd be easy to draw a conclusion that they've resisted FOI because they've got something to hide, but it's hard to say that for sure without the context. More likely they just don't like being pressured in their ongoing unpublished work with FOI requests which could damage the credibility of the final conclusions, so just wanted rid of the problem. I think that's a little iffy: 1. The main FOI requests have been for data sets on which previous publications have been based, not ongoing unpublished work. 2. It's hard to see how the release of raw data could damage the credibility of final conclusions, the validity of which would be decided by peer review based on the paper itself. If someone with access to the same data came up with a legitimate query, then that's part of the scientific process. 3. There's also discussion of how, if forced to release data, to obscure or muddle it, with the intention being stated as 'pissing off' whoever made the request. In any case, my point was more that they should be answering some of these questions, not just saying it's out of context and airily pointing at a lack of evidence of deep conspiracies to deny the world old fashioned light bulbs and hoping that will fly until it all dies down. I don't question the CRU's basic integrity, but there is a problem here in that the released e-mails and assorted files do, rightly or wrongly, go some way towards painting an image of scientists being engaged in petty infighting, backbiting, and obfuscation.

Even so, it doesn't do the CRU much good when their director is recorded, for instance, talking about how to avoid FOI requests, and stating he'd prefer to delete the files in question rather than release them. The CRU's response to all of this is a bit of a shambles really, and sticking something up on RealClimate, effectively doing piss all but preaching to the choir, isn't really enough.

Ideally the government would not be responsible for these things, but considering the nature of our current system it seems odd to me that it should not be. Isn't it? The Government already runs theatres, parks, museums, the NSC and other playing fields, and funds Manx radio, the wildlife park and the arts council. Seems to me that it is already quite heavily involved in the provision of entertainment and recreational activities.

Sounds something like the piazzas of European towns, which would be lovely. I agree wholeheartedly that Douglas is in desperate need for some kind of focal point. People sometimes dismiss the psychological effect of geography and civic planning, but in my mind it really does make a difference. Done well, a large open central area can provide a place with a real sense of identity, somewhere where people can linger and enjoy their town and around which businesses can thrive. At the moment Douglas is a spawling mess, with a couple of streets of shops that don't really centre on anywhere you'd want to spend any serious amount of time; basically it feels more like a large, unweildy housing development more than it does a community. However, most successful examples have developed naturally over the centuries, from markets to the heart of civil administration and the community as a whole around which the town developed. At one time I assume that this would have been the area immediatedly surrounding the Quay, the heart of which has long since been ripped out and cut off from what's become the main part of town. Unfortunately, and I may be being too cynical, councils generally have a poor record when it comes to developing or establishing new town centres. Instead of what we experience when in Europe or around some of Britain's less disfigured market towns, we tend to be lumbered with soulless and drab areas that already look like they're halfway to becoming a wasteland (Bristol's Broadmead is a good example of this).

Nah, I just went off, as I do, on a bit of a tangent. Still, I do wonder how crucial this platform you mention is, and how effective something like a roller rink or bowling alley would actually be at providing it. You've already mentioned that there are weekly youth clubs available, and presumably there are things like after school clubs, occasional nights out at the cinema with friends and so forth, how many evenings hanging out with friends do kids really need before they get their well rounded individual badge?

That we are, but in all honestly I think it's even deeper than that. Consumerism I can deal with: at the very worst it's a bit vulgar and superficial, but I feel we're becoming more than that. Specifically, people are actually becoming more childish through being pandered to and having little to no real responsibilities until relatively late in life - a kind of behavioural neoteny, whereby domesticated animals live in some foggy extended juvenile stage, but for humans. I don't know how coloured my own personal view is, but a fair few late adolescents today seem to have the same kind of attitudes, expectations, demands, and limitations that I remember being closer to those of children in their early to mid teens, and a similar kind of arrested development is evident in a lot of adults too. In a sense this is already well documented. Going back a couple of years I can remember people talking about the rise of the 'man child' - emotionally stunted creatures who don't truly experience adulthood until their mid-thirties, and when they do it takes the form of some kind of mild personal crisis similar to that more commonly associated with middle age.. But I wonder whether it doesn't have a darker side as well. For instance, take the claimed increase in antisocial behaviour, violence, and irresponsibility in society and compare the same behaviour to what you'd expect from a bunch of spoilt children who've been given access to booze and the strength of adults. Obviously, I'm not claiming that laser quest causes street violence (although it is shit, don't get me wrong), but I can't help but wonder if the society we've created, one that attempts to cater to and endlessly indulge its populace and their whims and in which there's little motivation to think for yourself or even grow up doesn't provide an often unacknowledged contribution to current social problems.

I'd say that there is some reasoning behind the provision of healthcare, education, security, transport, and justice. There may be some disagreement with regards to how involved the private sector should be in some of these, and what's the best method of provision, but essentially there is a case for government involvement (partial or full, direct or indirect) in all of these areas. However, the one area I would have thought that people could sort things out for themselves, more or less in its entirity and with an absolute minimum of state involvement (although as you say, the government is involved in running theatres, and also in providing and maintaining public parks), is keeping themselves occupied. Much more and I feel the state will be effectively infantalizing people, indulging and pandering to their whims to such an extent that we end up with a populace of fickle mush-heads with little idea of how to do things for themselves. To be honest, if kids and people find themselves bored and with nothing to do, it's only because we're relatively lucky to be living in a society that affords its inhabitants an awful lot of leisure time compared with other parts of the world and previous generations. As such, it seems a little spoilt to then cry out for help filling that time. Today we have access to virtually every book that has ever been written, every piece of music or film that's been recorded. We have the chance and the opportunity to take up a musical instrument, cultivate hobbies of our choosing, study any discipline, or choose from a bewildering variety of sports to partake in. We can be entertained in front of the television, in the playing field, sat at a computer or console, in a theatre or cinema, or relax with friends in a café, pub, restaurant, park, or on the beach. In short, we live in an age of unprecedented opportunities to be entertained and indulge our enthusiasms and interests. And yet we cry out for more, dismissing everything that we have and assuming that it's someone else's responsibility to provide us with yet more activities, novelties and fripperies. What does it say about us if, given all that we have, our boredom is so servere and our enthusiasm and imagination so limited that we desperately need X establishment to briefly lift our jaded spirits now and again? Sure, kids will still be bored. Kids generally do spend a lot of time bored, especially those who are at that awkward age when they're neither child nor adult, but that's life and they should be encouraged to make the most of their time, just like everyone else had to when they were that age.

It sounds good in principle, but isn't a roller rink a bit of a novelty thing? I wonder if it would really have the kind of sustained appeal needed to make it all worthwhile, or if it would be greeted with initial excitement only to end up half empty most evenings as kids eventually tire of trundling around a flat surface on a regular basis. Instead, why not make them do their homework and endless chores during the winter months, and lock them in an unheated outbuilding for a couple of hours if they complain? Once you break their spirit and they got used to it you could occupy them making arts and crafts odds and sods that you could then sell on, and use the profits to fund fun days out, or buy gin with.

I'm of much the same opinion, but what I really don't understand is why when people say they're bored there's always a call for something to be done, as if the state is one big creche with an obligation to entertain and amuse its populace. Part of being a kid, especially if you're not a sports billy, is spending a fair amount of time being bored and learning how to entertain yourself and make your own amusements. I'd wager that you could go to any town or city of any size, with all manner of entertainments and you'll still find a fair proportion of the adolescent population complaining that they're bored and that there's nothing for them - it's not so much the community that's at fault, as it is the fact that a fair number of people, especially kids and teenagers expect to be entertained on a near constant basis. I think it should be something that inspires people to make the most of their time, rather than cater or pander to their various appetites and tastes. One possibility would be to use the land as the site of a gigantic bronze statue of a broken man sitting at a desk, casting a glassy eyed stare at a computer screen filled with meaningless figures as the sands of time trickle into the bottom bulb of an egg timer next to it and a man in the background constructs a coffin. A plaque at the bottom of the monument will read "Fickle drones, welcome to your future!"

I'm no fan of Gore (to my mind he's just another lobbyist and a bit egotistical), but I just don't see what the clip really contributes to the climate change debate. Were it a scientific debate between experts, perhaps, but this is just vested interests going up against one another. If Gore did get a drubbing, then it means nothing more than that: it doesn't mean that the other guy is right, that his case was watertight, or even that Gore's basic point of view is wrong, it just means that a particular individual floundered whilst being cross examined. Sure, but is a gut feeling really worth anything on an issue like this? Gut feelings only really mean something when they're accompanied by a fair understanding of the situation but can't be anything more due to a lack some key piece of evidence to draw a firm conclusion (i.e. they're essentially an informed guess). Otherwise they're little more than a guess, and one that's necessarly limited by an ignorance of the full story.

So... you're saying the video has very little credibility, and yet still asking if it casts doubts on the causes of global warming?

Forum opinion is infallible. Couples who meet through Manxforums blind dating and who fail to make it work will have "it's all your fault" tattooed on their foreheads to remind them of this fact every time they sit and weep from loneliness in front of the mirror.

If there's one thing the forum needs more of, it's bitter recrimination from bad dates seeping into threads. There should be a whole subforum for this scheme, one where people are paired not according to their choice, but the common will of the forum majority as expressed through polls.

To be fair to Feynmann, the article was intended for a general audience so precise measurements for comparitive purposes would probably just interfere with what he's trying to do, that being to give a sense of scale. Compared with the distance used in the analogy, the difference between the diameter of a strand of hair and something close to a milimetre is negligible as far as trying to impress a sense of whats going on up is concerned (and it at least has some kind of rigour in that the order of magnitude is the same)!

I could be wrong, but I don't think Feynman's talking about the accuracy of the theory relative to measurement, but the accuracy of both relative to the actual Dirac number (since he talks of the accuracy of these numbers), in this case +/- 4 X 10^(-11) for measurement, and +/- 2 X 10^(-10) for the theory. When applied to the distance analogy, this gives +/- 1.6 X 10^(-4) and +/- 7.9 X 10^(-4) respectively, which is at least the right order of magnitude (which is what a lot of scientists mean when they talk about accuracy on a small or large scale).