12-05-2016, 09:53 PM
(12-05-2016, 09:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know about the US, but in the scientific world here there always is some pressure to produce some kind of result that can be published. Which from time to time leads to some study with titles and claims with the word "possible" added that somehow disguise the fact that there's nothing real substantial to see.
A scientist whose research doesn't prove or show anything gets a harder time to recieve fundings the next year, and fundings are needed and money's often tight.
Not that I would say climate change is sensationalism on the part of the scientists, not by a long shot, but when someone claims "well, scientists need to have results" in order to be able to carry on, it's tough to say there's no truth to that at all. The point is not completely moot (although it in no way indicates that climate change is unproven or "looney").
Finding that man does not cause global warming is results just like finding that man does contribute.
Same goes for testing a new drug for dangerous side effects. "None" is results just like "causes cancer" is.
