======================================================
You know who pays his salary and he could make triple that working for a corporation.
You guys live in this fantasy world that scientists do science to get grants. That is so dumb. Scientists do science because it interests them and many start as children; and anyone with a PHD in science can usually find a job somewhere, so that just is not the motivating factor.
Do you really think guys like Einstein followed science for money-lol??
If it was money they were thinking of they would get an MBA which would be a hell of a lot easier and pay a hell of a lot more.
You live in a total fantasy world. You project. You are the one who would think of money over science so you figure others feel the same way. They don't.
Do you think Plato, Socrates and Aristotle examined life for money???/ Or Bertrand Russell, or the myriad other great scientists?
You are so shallow.
====================================================
That was a nice little rant considering how basic the question was. You seem quite defensive. And for good reason. You recognize that skepticism is a key part of the scientific process. The scientific method was put in place very specifically to counteract the bias that every individual brings to everything they do. A scientist, no matter how well intentioned, cannot avoid having a bias. And one's livelihood is a very powerful bias to go against. What the AGW movement has done is to subvert the scientific method. You saw the emails where it was clear that peer review was being sabotaged. If you look at the grants that are offered, they aren't for "is there global warming" they are for "what caused global warming" or "what are the causes of the current climate trends". I've looked, there is a pre-supposed outcome that assumes that AGW is 1. real 2. harmful. Your son may be the best scientist and with the most integrity, but he also has to put food on the table. And if his job is defined as providing a study that shows how emissions from coal plants cause global warming, he isn't going to come back with a study that contradicts his mandate. He's going to figure out what possible parts of coal plant emissions can cause global warming.
You think I am attacking your SIL and scientists in general. In fact, I am trying to get you to embrace one of the key components of science. And that is skepticism.
You cannot discount money. If your SIL could not make a living as a scientist, he would find something else to do. My boss has a PhD in Marine Biology. He couldn't make a living (at least to his level of expectations) as a marine biologist so during the 90s he got sucked into the silicon valley tornado, just like me, and now does wireless networking stuff. And he makes a great living and his PhD does indicate a certain amount of intelligence and perhaps even more perseverance. But sometimes a PhD is more about an unwillingness to go out and get a real job. You've heard the term "professional student" haven't you? I have certainly known PhD's who couldn't hack it in the real world.
I love science. I love science for the sake of science and I value science as a way to make a living. I wanted to be a geologist from February 9th, 1971 until today. But in college, I had different priorities and didn't do what is necessary to make a living as a scientist. So I do something else to make money and geology is a very active hobby of mine.
Your SIL is lucky. Politicians have glomed on to the global warming thing and are pumping money into your son's chosen specialty. If they hadn't, he may have ended up working at Microsoft or Cisco or some other company that could provide him with a decent salary...and he would have remained interested in science and would practice it late at night in a darkened room.
But that doesn't mean that he or you should give up that most important requirement of scientific thinking....skepticism |
