Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Is this another data point that among physicists, high-energy physicists and astrophysicists are the most likely to be climate sceptics?

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 17th, 2007 at 05:37:26 AM EST
It's because they both want lots of fundings for cosmic ray observatories. If they claim cosmic rays are critical to the full understanding of global warming, they'll get the funds. And they want big money, after all they are the guys who used to toy with the LEP, LHC, Hubble space telescope, etc...

My guess: they will get their observatories, but not so much money, cos' you can do high-energy physics on counting cosmic rays for pretty cheap actually (just a satellite constellation)

Reminds me of the "particle-beam driven nuclear incinerator" of the Italian nobel, forgot his name. It was indeed a fine way for him to keep his turf running beyond the last wave of pure-science particle accelerators. It didn't make it though.


Pierre

by Pierre on Wed Oct 17th, 2007 at 07:39:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Carlo Rubbia.

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 17th, 2007 at 08:03:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it has more to do with institutional biases. Astrophysicists, after all, have their 'own' theory, and it's easy to become enamoured with a pet theory from your own field and dismiss the expertise in other fields (a point certain economists might want to keep in mind...), while high energy physics is... shall we say, a bit - ah - distanced even from the rest of physics. It would be impolite to mention ivory towers, but...

That being said, I've yet to see data that suggests that climate change denialism is more rampant among physicists, or some subset thereof, than among the general population.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Oct 17th, 2007 at 01:35:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I see you pitched into the thread where this idea was floated for the first time here...

A swedish kind of death:

Physicists

Is it just my impression or are physicists common among climate change opponents?

I have a theory about that. I would today consider physics to be the science with the highest prestige among sciences. I think it is that way because of physics big funding, stemming from a close relationsship with big government and big industry. Physics gives guns and toys. The problem with climate change (from a physicist perspective) is the lack of solutions involving big piles of money to physics reserach. Hence the denial.

The alternative solution is to claim that it is an astronomical effect, where the sun is causing increased heat (nevermind that pouring out ghg should have some effect), because that would get astrophysics institutions more money.

Now, I am not saying that individual physicists are trying to shut down a theory that would hurt them. It is probably not that easy. It is more that a theory that hurt physics (as an institution) gets disliked among physicists and therefore a greater number of physicists then people in general becomes climate change deniers. Add the credibility of physics in general and you get prominent climate change deniers.

JakeS:

Re: Physicists

Eeer... When did climate modeling cease being physics?

The physicists among the AGW denialists probably have higher profiles than the rank-and-file (for much the same reasons that creationist engineers and doctors get more press than creationist pastors), but I very much doubt that scientists of any stripe are over-represented in the denialist community.

There does seem to be a small number of astrophysicists who are sufficiently enamored of the solar-forcing theory that they seem like AGW denialists, but I would not be surprised to find out that the newsies and politicians who reference them exaggerate their claims.

- Jake

"While the truth is always revolutionary, the revolutionary is not always true." - Proverb

BTW, JS, are you at NBI?

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 17th, 2007 at 01:53:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, had not noticed Jakes answer.

It still is an impression of mine, but I agree that I do not have much foundation for it. However, there is  another valid point.

Eeer... When did climate modeling cease being physics?

In my neck of the university woods climate modelling is related to meterology, which is related to earth sciences (geology and such). Why I do not know, but probably some historical reasons. Which means that climate modeling may use physicis but is not in the physics sciences club, it is instead over there with the weathermen and the stone lovers. If this is a general phenomena (as I presumed) or not is an open and possibly interesting question.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Oct 17th, 2007 at 02:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW, JS, are you at NBI?

I'm a student there, yes. Why do you ask?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Oct 18th, 2007 at 08:01:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I used to know a number of people there.

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Oct 20th, 2007 at 06:23:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series