More accurate global temperature measurements

[Eleana]

Non-biased research? Well per se a scientist should be non-biased. It is the beauty of science to walk the path beyond the border of the well-known. The findings are non-biased in the first place.

The next steps are the people who want to find applications for the findings. That's where commerce kicks in and the end of the innocence.

Well, and as most resaerch is funded from somebody...

The US government (whether that's G.W. Bush or Congress) can do what other governments have done, i.e. tax pollution. This can take the form of taxes on fuels which cause pollution, or taxes on emissions, land fills, etc. True G.W. is only one man, but he is the man who can manipulate the tax system when it suits him.

As far as long term records go, we may not have records with quite the same accuracy as meteorological data, but we have many good indicators in the form of tree rings, core samples from lake beds, the ice caps, etc. And there is geology.

[Artoo]

Originally posted by DevineHerring
damn good editing... I'm not really a doomsayer... but I can get bombastic..

Sh*te! I must've hit the 'edit' button instead of 'quote'. My apologies, old bean.

[Artoo]

Originally posted by Eleana
Well per se a scientist should be non-biased. It is the beauty of science to walk the path beyond the border of the well-known. The findings are non-biased in the first place.

Not at all! All research is biased - the very act of choosing what research to do imbues bias, in the same way that choosing which news to report imbues bias.

What the honourable researcher does is publish their biased results in the hope that others' work supports their conclusions and so appraoches the truth. It's the lack of such corroboration that discredits things like cold fusion and, dare I mention it, Clonaid.

[Eleana]

Sorry should've used the quote function...

Allow me to disagree. Science in its pure form is non-biased. It's curiousity in it's purest form. Sheer lust on going where nobody has been before should characterize the researcher.

The next step is dcalled evelopment. Yes, there is all the bias you can find. The bias of the expert with his set expectations, the bias of the poeple funding the project, and the bias of the coworkers.

Finally the act of engineering, the verification of a product which was once a research object, a product in development has reached production.

... hope to be continued!

[DevineHerring]

>>Eleana : "Science in its pure form is non-biased. It's curiousity in it's purest form. "

>> InResp.To Artoo : All research is biased

I think yer both right but Artoo more so... The curiosity might be pure (though quite often tainted by pursuit of evidence to prove an outcome) but no research is pure, even if the intent isto be so. All research, is affected by uncontollable (or unknown) variables and the constraints defining the method and execution defined by the researcher. The very inexactness of any physical system is a form of bias, though you may wish to refer to it as something other. It is only the collective outcome of many investigations, that result in accepted science, though someone or ones put the pieces together and get the ultimate credit. ("We stand on the shoulders of giants.")

In the US, research in our universities is being funded more and more by private and corporate concerns, with interest in specific outcomes, and there is less funding available of late for research without a specific goal ("pure science".) I fear the degree of bias is increasing proportionately, and not only is there more tainted research being done, but there is also a great shift in "the things being researched".

And Artoo... you can edit my trolls anytime you want.. I don't get offended...

[Artoo]

We should distinguish here between 'altruistic' and 'biased'; and between natural laws (which are obviously impartial) and the process by which we investigate them. Research is biased by the interests - personal or financial but hopefully altruistic - of the researcher or, increasingly (as DH notes), the funding agency. The very act of choosing what to investigate means there is bias before any work is done at all. But that's not always a bad thing. I'm biased towards mechanics rather than chemistry. Does it matter?

But imagine Einstein trying to get funded these days?

Previous research in this field by others? None!

Expected industrial applications? None!

Gantt chart for the duration of the project? Eh?