[licker]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Dammit, licker missed my post again. Seems I'm doomed never to find an answer for that one.

Yes, sorry, I sort of addressed it elsewhere, and so did Max(?), but I'll try to do better.

I have seen first hand funding being denied or removed if the proposed research would seem likely to be at odds with some other agenda (usually non scientific). As I commented somewhere, in the case of GW this is true from both sides of the specturm, and is something I find personally abhorrent.

Further the direct funding issue with the notion of paradigms Omni and others are discussing and when you look at where the funding is coming from, you often have to couch your proposal in friendly terms to the organization handing out the money (think IPCC here, also oil companies, though they have 'come around' lately anyway and are really no longer a factor in this debate).

So if you are interested in doing climate research, and you have publicly been critical of the GW theories as pushed by the IPCC, you are less likely to receive funding for basically any research in that area. At least funding from organizations whom support the IPCC, so there is some impetus to accept the popular theory and just run with it.

Most good scientists do not invest their research with the politics of the day, but some do, and some are pressured to (I have seen this from DHS...).

So does that address your question? You can call it peer pressure if you like, but the field of climate science is (or was) a fairly small and insular one, and as such the breaking of the GW paradigm is very difficult to do internally.

I meant within the framework of this particular debate. Since we don't agree on the causes, then we just have to live with that, and begin to act before we fully understand.

I disagree. Acting before we understand the causes is just as likely to do ill as it is to do good. Look at DDT as a clear example where acting before all relevant information was in place as a case in point. (and yes, DDT is 'bad' but the alternative, malaria, is worse).

I agree that we need to be looking at mitigation and adaptation technologies though, but those are beside the point of whether the temperature is going up or down.