Factors affecting the independence and reliability of Science and how these are perceived

Science studies natural phenomena or uses laws, theories, models and mechanisms to explain them, which are revised when new evidence emerges. However, Science cannot give answer to all questions that may arise. The benefits of science are well known and there is no reason to expand on them. It is of interest though to examine the structure and factors that influence the scientific world and may hold it back from offering greater benefits to mankind. The current study is concerned with the question whether or not Science is independent and reliable. Social and political reasons can direct substantive research in specific areas, but they can also encourage the promotion of unfounded theories. External factors such as prejudice against new ideas and understanding of natural happenings can negatively affect the objectivity of Science. Such factors examined in this paper and influence Science are: Research funding, policy makers and industry; Journal editors; Dogma; Theories declared as Conspiracies; Mutual interests in Academia; Knowledge control, cover ups and war superiority. The above factors can be used negatively to restrain serious scientists from expressing educated opinions and publishing them in scientific journals. In this way healthy discussions between 'opposing parties' are restricted, with Science being the victim as no sound conclusions and consensus on important subjects are reached. To check how the above positions are perceived by the scientific community, a questionnaire was circulated among scientists in 11 countries. Analyzing the 106 responds that were anonymously received, indicated that the respondents were largely in line with the expressed positions of the present paper. It is proposed that the real answer to minimize the effect of the factors that influence Science negatively, is educating people's critical abilities and considering nothing for granted-especially under the influence of powerful Media-unless its validity is independently checked and verified.

Global warming and carbon dioxide through sciences

Increased atmospheric CO(2)-concentration is widely being considered as the main driving factor that causes the phenomenon of global warming. This paper attempts to shed more light on the role of atmospheric CO(2) in relation to temperature-increase and, more generally, in relation to Earth's life through the geological aeons, based on a review-assessment of existing related studies. It is pointed out that there has been a debate on the accuracy of temperature reconstructions as well as on the exact impact that CO(2) has on global warming. Moreover, using three independent sets of data (collected from ice-cores and chemistry) we perform a specific regression analysis which concludes that forecasts about the correlation between CO(2)-concentration and temperature rely heavily on the choice of data used, and one cannot be positive that indeed such a correlation exists (for chemistry data) or even, if existing (for ice-cores data), whether it leads to a "severe" or a "gentle" global warming. A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is a validated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01-0.03 degrees C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO(2). Through a further review of related studies and facts from disciplines like biology and geology, where CO(2)-change is viewed from a different perspective, it is suggested that CO(2)-change is not necessarily always a negative factor for the environment. In fact it is shown that CO(2)-increase has stimulated the growth of plants, while the CO(2)-change history has altered the physiology of plants. Moreover, data from palaeoclimatology show that the CO(2)-content in the atmosphere is at a minimum in this geological aeon. Finally it is stressed that the understanding of the functioning of Earth's complex climate system (especially for water, solar radiation and so forth) is still poor and, hence, scientific knowledge is not at a level to give definite and precise answers for the causes of global warming.