The Economic Times reports that there is a profound shortage of scientists choosing to study climate change – that advanced Physics and Maths graduates are being attracted to more interesting fields, such as Cosmology.
According to the Economic Times;
The facts should speak for themselves. The Divecha Centre for Climate Change, at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, is organising a national conference on climate change in July. The deadline for submitting abstracts is just two weeks away, and the organisers have received too few quality abstracts of papers for the conference. The message is quite clear: not enough people work on climate change in India.
Till recently, Govindasamy Bala, a professor at the centre involved in organising the conference, thought this was uniquely an Indian problem. But a news story in the journal Nature early this month told him that it was not the case. The story talked about the shortage of good climate scientists in the world, and the efforts of some climatologists to attract more physicists and mathematicians to their field. “I was surprised to learn that shortage of good climate scientists is a global problem,” says Bala.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/why-not-enough-people-are-working-on-climate-change-in-india/articleshow/46965264.cms
The issue, in my opinion, makes perfect sense if you think about it. If you are a talented graduate, bursting with intellectual potential, would you like to work in an intolerant field of research, where new ideas are punished by name calling, ostracism and financial hardship, or would you prefer to apply your talents to a field where new ideas are welcome, and innovation is rewarded?
Global warming is still the core belief of human-accelerated catastrophic climate change hypothesis. A 45 year old Ph.D. Climatologist has not observed global warming since completing her dissertation. More than half a career waiting for validation. The last decade spent waiting to show eight hottest years on record have made droughts, fires and storms more devastating. A few areas of Physics are this same way, but without the tremendous media hype and public policy expectations. This cannot be lost on young scientists just beginning their studies. How many more papers are needed that to prove changes in the range of various flora and fauna are catastrophically faster than the geologic proxies suggest?
i think this is very accurate. Why study something that you earn thousands for when you do not need to know about the subject. I think there are just some clever people who know they can study for something that has substance but can carry on pulling at the coews teats and earn a fortune.
Well, it makes sense. If the science is settled, then what does a climate scientist do? One cannot do research in a field that is cleanly buttoned up and settled. One does not research something that is researched already.
Picture Faber College (from Animal House) during rush week, and the little freshmen scientist nerds walk into the big rich frat full of sadists being run by Michael Mann, Lewandowsky, Nuccutelli and Schmidt. One little nerd scientist says he wants to study the effects of the sun or the Earth’s orbit on climate, and they walk him over to the couch to sit with the blind and crippled kids.
I think the interest level in cellulosic ethanol is also on the wane, along with syngas plants using coal.
I’m not sure if a shift to cosmology is to be welcomed:
The phycisist needs: a lab, a computer, a desk and a wastepaper basket.
The mathematician needs: a computer, a desk and a wastepaper basket
The cosmologist needs: a desk and a wastepaper basket
The climate scientist needs: a wastepaper basket.
[Rather: The climate scientist should have a wastepaper basket … but doesn’t. .mod]