This comment displays a vast ignorance of how research actually gets done. Most research is funded to gain knowledge, regardless of the result (otherwise it would simply be called 'knowing', not research). Note for instance that the drug companies continue spending millions dollars on basic research year after year, even when they don't get an immediate result. So don't broad-brush the dedicated work of hundreds of thousands of scientists with your own questionable view of ethics.
The people who are not motivated enough to put in the effort are not scientists - they are pundits. Researchers who are truly interested in their work - and that would be most of them - put in decades of observation and analysis looking for some truth, because simply grinding an axe would never be personally satisfying. It is lazy and disrespectful of you and other armchair commentators to simply dismiss all that work with a three-line opinion.
from the i-fought-the-law-and-the-law-one dept.
nandemoari writes "When security officials decide to 'go after' computer malware, most conduct their actions from a defensive standpoint. For most of us, finding a way to rid a computer of the malware suffices — but for one computer researcher, however, the change from a defensive to an offensive mentality is what ended the two year chase of a sinister botnet once and for all. For two years, Atif Mushtaq had been keeping the notorious Mega-D bot malware from infecting computer networks. As of this past November, he suddenly switched from defense to offense. Mega-D had forced more than 250,000 PCs to do its bidding via botnet control."
drewtheman writes "New studies of the plumbing that feeds the Yellowstone supervolcano in Wyoming's Yellowstone National Park shows the plume and the magma chamber under the volcano are larger than first thought and contradicts claims that only shallow hot rock exists. University of Utah research professor of geophysics Robert Smith led four separate studies that verify a plume of hot and molten rock at least 410 miles deep that rises at an angle from the northwest."
likuidkewl writes "Two super-earths, 5 and 7.5 times the size of our home, were found to be orbiting 61 Virginis a mere 28 light years away. 'These detections indicate that low-mass planets are quite common around nearby stars. The discovery of potentially habitable nearby worlds may be just a few years away,' said Steven Vogt, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at UCSC. Among hundreds of our nearest stellar neighbors, 61 Vir stands out as being the most nearly similar to the Sun in terms of age, mass, and other essential properties."
MikeChino writes "Researchers at Arizona State University have genetically engineered cyanobacteria to dissolve from the inside out, making it easy to access the high-energy fats and biofuel byproducts located within. To do this they combined the bacteria's genes with genes from the bacteriaphage — a so-called 'mortal enemy' of bacteria that cause it to explode. Cyanobacteria have a higher yield potential than most biofuels currently being used, and this new strain eliminates the need for costly and energy intensive processing steps."
AGW research has been going on for nearly 50 years, but the most heated controversy has only been the last decade. However you want to frame the debate at this moment in time, there has still been at least forty years of good, undisturbed research to build on. Hence AGW is science, whereas the opinionated skeptics are politicians at heart.
The theory is that unprecedented levels of CO2 are forcing unprecedented levels of global temperature increase (and glacial retreat) due to CO2's ability to capture and re-radiate infrared energy, which can be demonstrated in the lab. The question is whether you're willing to bet that there is some (currently unknown) natural process which can balance that unprecedented heating, or whether we're toast.
There's a major, man-made difference this time: atmospheric CO2 has increased 30% in the last century, to the highest level in a million years (according to ice cores). Are you willing to bet against that making a major, permanent change in our climate? A change that might, for instance, make vast amounts of US farmland unusable due to drought?
How does this constitute a 'complete hoax' of global warming when literally thousands of other researchers have produced thousands of papers over the last twenty years showing similar trends in atmospheric temperature, ocean temperature, glacial retreat, permafrost melting, seasonal trends, species migration and etc?
If the data was manipulated, then why does it show the same trends as NASA and NOAA data? And how come it agrees with research by the Germans, Australians, Japanese, Candians and French? I mean, come on, when do the French *ever* agree with anyone else?