Comments on: Government grants distort the climate change debate

By: Grant

Grant — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:03:23 +0000

So you’re saying the government is just as evil as private corporations?

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:38:51 +0000

Seems similar to what some people say about immigration – until welfare is properly reformed, we shouldn’t increase immigration.

Immigration and research geared to the profit motivce already deliver benefits, despite their sub optimal pre-conditions.

However, you would be right to say that IP law needs to be scrapped or seriously watered down.

By: Stephen Gream

Stephen Gream — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:00:51 +0000

Sorry about being the devil’s advocate here (and I can see this topic has been dead for months….), but isn’t any deliberately ordered commission going to find whatever they have been paid to? To a point we benefit from taxpayer funded research (http://www.csiro.au/news/pt74.html), and I know private industry would probably start filling the void if the government stepped back, but in this day and age of insane copyright laws and abuse in the issuing of patents, we would need to strike a correct balance in law before withdrawing the funding completely

By: Tim R

Tim R — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:44:32 +0000

Just because you take away the profit motive, doesn’t mean people aren’t motivated by money.
Completing grant applications is a long process and is of extremely high importance to the researchers.

Grants (and therefore money) are everything to researchers. And research advances careers and is more prestigious (even when it’s useless research) than teaching.
It’s no wonder uni education is so expensive.

By: Strawman

Strawman — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:11:37 +0000

>> You’ve never worked in the public service, have you?
>> Their jobs are always secure. They won’t get fired
>> if global warming reverses itself. They don’t get
>> bonuses if we get extra scared of climate change.

You’ve never worked for the CSIRO have you?
There jobs may be secure, but funding is not.
The average scientist in the CSIRO would sell their grandmother for the next round of funding. Promotions in the CSIRO are also intimately connected with funding.

Let me give you a specific example:

20 years ago, the CSIRO was going research into the slow
death of the Great Barrier Reef with GRMPA (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority). It was well known then that the
reef was being killed by chemicals from the rivers (mostly
fertilizer runoff from farms).

As soon as Global Warming became popular, the reason changed. Look at any of the literature now. The reason has changed to:

*** GLOBAL WARMING*** (and some chemical runoff).

Same science, same effect, different funding priorities, different conclusion. Who’d have thought?

There is a strange notion that a ***SCIENTIST*** is (sort of like a modern day Pope) total uncorruptable. Scientists are people, just like any other public servant, trying to maximize their incomes, and further their status and careers.

Just as a businessmen pursues the most likely course of action to make him money, so the scientist pursues the most likely course of action to further his career. And AGW skepticism would be a career halting decision in the current political climate.

To suggest that this isn’t so, is simply naive or dishonest.

By: Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut.

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:12:51 +0000

[...] Government grants distort the climate change debate « Thoughts on Freedom Government money can also corrupt, just like private money. What about the incentives facing “Department of Climate Change” bureaucrats? If they exaggerate the threat of global warming, won’t their jobs become more secure? Indeed, public servants find it in their… [...]

By: jc

jc — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:05:54 +0000

Yes john, and parts the of government funded education continue to tell us that nuke power is dangerous to our health.

A number of government paid professors decry free labor markets when there’s incontrovertible evidence the opposite is the case. These trogs are supposedly trained as economists by the way, receiving a stipend from our taxes.

Is there any corrupt practices? Sure there is on both sides of the fence.

By: JohnZ

JohnZ — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:58:53 +0000

Sukrit, are you claiming that when evaluating complex scientific arguments which you don’t understand that you never look at the incentives people have to say what they do?

Incentives matter.

By the way, what do you think of the science funded by the tobacco lobby which disproves the smoking/cancer link?

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:29:06 +0000

I think, therefore I don’t exist!
Oops, that can’t be right! I think, therefore I AM! That’s better! And why would I need to think, unless socialists are causing problems?
The world is too complex for solipsism to be plausible. If I were the only thing, or the center, of the universe, why aren’t I worshipped as G.O.D.?
Therefore, the existence of an exterior universe is more plausible than any other idea, so I can accept that.

By: Jarrah Job

Jarrah Job — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:12:29 +0000

Questioning everything, old Nicholas, is all well and good. But at what point do you accept anything?