I have a thread on my blog titled Taking the Money for Grant(ed) – Part I that responds to the following two claims:

1) Scientists are getting rich from research grants!
2) Scientists holding an anti-AGW viewpoint cannot get funding!

I used my own recent grant experience to debunk claim #1. In a future post called Part II, I want to show examples of how grant money is spent at other institutions, especially the larger research institutions. Essentially, tell me why you are also not getting rich from your grants. You can comment on my blog or send me a private email.

My email address is mandias@sunysuffolk.edu

You can give me as much or as little detail as you think it necessary to dispel claim #1. Before I post part II, I will send a draft copy to any person whose information is being used and you will have carte blanche to edit what I had planned to post. Nothing will appear in my post that you do not confirm.

I appreciate all the help you can offer!

Before starting the job, I was somewhat skeptical about AGW — I thought there was probably warming but wasn’t sure how much humans had to do with it. I think some of that was a somewhat irrational default skepticism in response to what I perceived as overzealous environmental activists or biased media reporting, who I assumed were exaggerating things beyond what the scientific literature supported.

However, at the time I knew virtually nothing about the actual science, other than some physics of the greenhouse effect (which obviously existed, I just wasn’t sure how well we could calculate the effects of anthropogenic CO2 on the Earth’s climate). I knew I didn’t know much, so I didn’t take any strong position on the matter, and certainly didn’t rule out the job offer on those grounds. I accepted the position, still not knowing very much but already starting to learn.

After intensively studying the scientific literature as part of my new job, speaking with my colleagues, and going to talks, over a few years I became convinced that humans likely were responsible for much of the recent warming, although (as the IPCC acknowledges) there is still substantial uncertainty about the amount and distribution of climate change expected in the future.

It’s slow progress, but it is still impressive that anything is done at all given the negative attitudes expressed in the media in the last few months.

This week in particular has seen the announcement of 1.2GW of tidal and wave energy farms in Scotland, along with today Nissan committing to build the electric Leaf car in Newcastle. The UK is showing a lead when it comes to marine and offshore wind energy.

At the end of last year we had the announcements of some 30GW of planned offshore wind farms. I know a lot of environmentalists get frustrated with the slow pace. But the total amount of renewable energy plants of all kinds in the UK, planned for the next 10 to 20 years, far exceeds the pace of post WWII expansion in UK electricity generation, or anything before it.

It’s going to take at least a decade before a lot of this becomes reality. But 5 years ago I was having discussions about this sort of thing at it was purely theoretical.

But… you can only do your best, not more. And you did already more than most. A lot more.

My story is not too different. The first tangential allusion to climate change that I ran across was in an essay by Robert Heinlein, were he made reference to possible adverse changes in climate. A more proper introduction to the subject was from reading about James Hansen and his views in the paper. Subsequently I came across Greg Craven’s videos. Those videos started an active interest in this subject of climate change / global warming.

Presently I am taking a physics and a calculus course as part of an engineering science curriculum. My interest in this subject has already helped me. During a physics test I got a question correct because of having learned some unit prefixes while researching climate change. Had I not done so, I would not have remembered them. In my calculus text some of the applications are of interest because the relate to AGW. In the section on the fundamental theorm of calculus in Larson, Hostetler, and Edwards there is a discussion of how the speed of sound varies with altitude. The curve looks like the temperature curve for average temperatures through the layers of our atmosphere. It looks like an interesting question. There is also a rather curious application given in the first chapter of this same text, that discusses a July 1990 article from Scientfic American that made some predictions regarding growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Unfortunately my interest in this subject does not make trigonometric substitutions, or any of the other nifty integration techniques any easier to learn. Sometimes nothing will substitute for skull sweat.

Kate thanks for the links to James Hrynyshyn, Michael Tobis, Tamino, Scott Mandia, Deltoid, and the rest. It was a help.

Patrick

My recent interest started with a forming ice berg on the Amery ice shelf “the Loose Tooth” from there I was lead, stumbled upon, Greg Craven’s videos. Then Greg started his book and I was one of those who helped with research on the Manpollo site.

I quickly came to the conclusion that the IPCC report was far from being alarmist and generally understated the risks, particularly in relation to sea level rise.

The future had arrived much earlier than expected.

Surfing the internet, it didn’t take me long to happen upon Greg Craven’s videos which I watched over the course of a couple of days. I liked his risk analysis, confirmation bias and credibility-matrix approach to the topic. This led me to become involved with the Manpollo.org forum, first as a participant, by now as one of the moderators/admins. Over time I’ve accumulated quite a big list of blogs I regulary read like Climate Progress, RealClimate, SkepticalScience (where I also help to get the arguments translated into German) and – obviously – Climatesight. In addition I’ve read several more books about climate change – both about the science and the politics (Paul Hoggan’s “Climate Cover-Up”) involved. There’s so much to read and learn and so little time!

As the evidence for AGW broadened and deepened, so did this portion of my class, not to mention my personal sense of urgency about the issues. I had a real watershed moment when I looked at my notes one year, and realized all the things I’d been telling my class as hypothetical effects of AGW, e.g., ecological migrations, hydrologic cycle changes, etc., were becoming broadly evidence-based events. The AGW part of my class has now expanded from 1.5 hours to about 8. That includes a little time for long term climate change.

On a personal level, I try to keep well enough informed through journals, blogs, etc. to be able to explain AGW to my non-scientist friends, and fight back against the denialists. I also just dig having a better understanding of earth systems and history.

Yeah, but what sinks me (and I’m NOT coping at all), is that in that model, I’m the doctor, and the patient’s smoking is killing MY children. Doesn’t make for a pleasant attitude toward humanity (or generic individuals).

Just ask my wife. I’m just a barrel of giggles to live with. :-(