So is your point of view that scientists are unaffected by worldly things like travel, fame, prestige, social acceptance, lack of opposition, money, and power, and that the scientists of the IPCC are neutral, being just as willing to consider evidence against their view as evidence for their view?
If so, perhaps you could explain such things as why the IPCC scientists refused to allow Paul Reiter to serve? Or why they are the only major organization to use MER accounting rather than PPP accounting? We can start by you telling us how those actions are compatible with science in any way, and then I have a host of other examples once you’ve explained those.
This is very like your evasion of the question whether any scientific organization but the IPCC has a policy to write the summary, then change the science to match. You claimed the IPCC was scientific, but when it comes to supporting your argument in this instance, somehow you don’t have time, or aren’t interested, in finding even one other scientific organization with such a policy. You even say you don’t think my “description of the process is particularly accurate” … jshore, I merely quoted the IPCC description of the process. If you don’t think that’s accurate, take it up with the IPCC, not me. I didn’t make the policy.
Next, you seem to be saying that if AGW were shown to be 100% wrong, that there would be no change in the amount of funding going to climate science … is that what you are saying, and if so, are you sure you want to espouse that position?
You also say:
This proves my point exactly. Perhaps your statement is true, I’ve never researched the question, although most of the skeptical scientists I interact with have no such connection. Me, I’m liberal, anti-Bush, and have never made a dime for my climate research. But if your statement is true, it is certainly equally as true to say:
Which, of course, was my point … there’s more going on than pure science, on both sides of the aisle, and we’d be fools to believe that scientists’ motives on either side are pure and altruistic. James Hansen happily accepts a $250,000 award from an environmental group whose worldview benefits from AGW being right … it happens on both sides.
Next, is there a conspiracy? Ridiculous. People, including scientists, are always happy to jump on a bandwagon, in fact it’s so common that we have a proverb for it called … well … “jumping on a bandwagon”. But I suppose you think that scientists are immune to that as well.
Here’s an example. One of the most important questions in climate science is the “climate sensitivity”. This is how much the global temperature is predicted to increase if the CO2 levels double.
In 1980, Wang-Stone made the first calculation of climate sensitivity, using an extremely simple one D radiative convective model. They said the sensitivity was 1.5° to 4.5°C per doubling of CO2.
A quarter of a century later, we have spent millions of dollars and millions of man hours studying climate, and the latest, hot-off-the-presses IPCC report lists the sensitivity as … 1.5° to 4.5°C per doubling of CO2.
Where is the scientific progress? Twenty-five years and millions of man-hours and dollars, and there is no improvement in the estimate of sensitivity. Not only that, there is not one single theoretical derivation of this sensitivity value, just a series of much more expensive and much more complex models that haven’t improved the answer at all in a quarter century of trying … perhaps that might give you a clue about the accuracy and value of the models.
Now you might call that lack of progress, and that unquestioning belief in models which don’t improve over time, “science” … me, I say it’s scientists merrily jumping on a bandwagon carrying a banner saying “1.5° - 4.5°”, a banner which has no theoretical foundation and which decades of study have not improved in the slightest.
Your argument boils down to saying that the only possible reason that in 2007 most scientists agree that AGW is a significant problem is because it is true … which is as foolish as saying that the only possible reason that in 1945 most scientists agreed that continents couldn’t move was because it was true. Was the belief in the immovability of continents the result of a “conspiracy”? Did it indicate that the “scientific establishment was corrupted”? Of course not, that’s foolishness. It was just scientists who were on the bandwagon.
You also make the claim that the lack of some alternative explanation means that your explanation must be correct … I’m sure that sober reflection on this claim will reveal the obvious flaw in your argument. In fact, the exact same argument was made against Wegener and continental drift, because as the scientists of the day pointed out, Wegener had no explanation of how the continents could possibly be moving … so they, like you, believed that absent an alternative explanation, their explanation had to be correct.
Finally, am I saying that “the scientific establishment has been corrupted”? Absolutely not, no more than in the days of Wegener and continental drift. I am saying that scientists are human, all too human, and are as subject to human failings, desires, and a fierce unwillingness to change a previously held opinion even in the face of contrary evidence, as is anyone else on the planet.
Thanks. You’re right, it says science research “for climate change” has increased.
But the figure you quoted includes technology (“research, development, and deployment of technologies and processes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or increase energy efficiency”) and international aid related to climate change. If you look at the science research budget alone, it’s only a 9% increase (adjusted for inflation, see page 15 of your cite).
There’s no reason to think it would ever sink, regardless of what we find in the future about AGW.
Besides, if there are scientists who are insecure enough about their funding or shameless enough to produce biased results, don’t you think they have gone to work for think tanks already? It’s clear that there are at least some scientists paid specifically to denounce AGW. I don’t understand why the perception is that the field as a whole is biased in the other direction.
Actually, the press releases do show that. Note that some of the funding was lost until Snowe apparently got it back into the budget.
My original point is that public concern about AGW has influenced the level of funding for climate research.
You agree that public concern about AGW has increased. You agree that the level of funding for climate research has increased. And the press releases I cited illustrate that there’s at least some linkage between these two things.
But you have yet to prove that these factors motivate individual scientists to produce a specific result. What you’re basically claiming is, scientists sit around and think “If I publish this result that says AGW is not real, Congress may cut the budget for climate research next year and I may be out of a job.” However, based on my experience as a researcher, he is far more likely to think “If I publish this result that says AGW is nor real, I’ll get famous, lots of people will cite my paper, I’ll easily get that tenure position.” That assumes you’re confident about your result, of course. Really, do you honestly think that a 9% gain in funding, spread over the entire field of climate science, is worth risking your career??
Besides, a lot of those scientists already have tenure, and in no danger of losing their jobs. And they know that whatever happens, their career would be better off if they were on the correct side, not the popular side.
My claim is that climate scientists have an incentive to exaggerate AGW. Your objection seems to be that if a particular scientist exaggerates AGW, the specific benefits to that scientist are tenuous and diffuse. Is that right?
OK, I can accept that. If you can accept that climate scientists also have an incentive to be honest and objective.
Yes. And in contrast, that scientist has a very strong incentive to report his/her findings in an objective and unbiased manner. It is in his/her best interest to advocate the conclusion that he/she believes is the correct one.
I don’t see why one thing should depend on the other. However I do agree that scientists have an incentive to be honest and objective.
The question, of course, is what happens when the incentive to be honest and objective comes into conflict with the incentive to increase one’s acceptance, attention, prestige, etc.
In my opinion, most humans pay attention to which side the bread is buttered on and this influences their judgment.
Scientists are trained to be objective, and disregard personal opinions and prejudices as much as possible. I’m trained as a scientist, and I often drive my SO mad by being too objective and fair.
And if desire for funding is a driving force behind AGW research, why is it that scientists in other fields of research aren’t trying to take credit for global warming? I haven’t seen much renewed interest in solar variability. And on the last few talks I heard about solar cycles, the researchers specifically mentioned that solar cycles do not explain the observed global warming.
intention, thanks as always for your detailed response.
Of course, scientists are human and are affected by worldly things. However, you are arguing that somehow this has happened in a way that has corrupted the entire process of science, i.e., at the level of very well-respected organizations like the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences and the similar academies in at least the 10 other major countries that signed on to the joint statement, the councils of the AMS and the AGU, etc., etc. Isn’t it much simpler to believe that a few scientists, who from their associations clearly have strong political biases and/or industry connections are affected by those biases rather than that those biases have taken over pretty much the entire scientific establishment?
(You also made some statements involving travel and implying the working on the IPCC presents great perks that I thought were a bit naive when applied to well-respected scientists in the field.)
Unfortunately, when I actually take the time to investigate statements like this of yours, I find that you have used highly-charged wording that frankly seems to reflect your biases more than the facts. It sounds pretty dramatic to claim that the “IPCC scientists refused to allow Paul Reiter to serve”. However, if one even looks at Paul Reiter’s own testimony of what happened, one finds a rather complex situation:
(1) It was he who initially resigned from the IPCC process during the preparation of the Third Assessment report.
(2) In the fourth assessment report, he was nominated by the U.S. to be a lead author on the report. The IPCC did not choose him as a lead author saying: “The IPCC received over 2000 government nominations during this process and most, such as yours, were of a very high standard. Unfortunately the IPCC Working Group Two Bureau did not pick you to be an author, although all nominations were scrutinised and assessed.” Reiter believes he was better qualified than the people who were chosen, a claim that I am in no way in a position to assess.
Perhaps you can summarize this by saying the IPCC refused to allow Paul Reiter to serve. However, if you do so, I could also say that there are several universities in the U.S. and Canada who back in the early 1990s refused to allow me to serve as a professor at their universities. Furthermore, more recently, my scientific society refused to allow me to serve in a science policy fellowship position that I applied for. I guess this must clearly show their blatant political bias against environmentalists!!!
Seriously though, characterizing not being chosen for a competitive position as “refusing to allow [him] to serve” is really twisting the facts quite a bit.
You did not quote the IPCC description of the process. You paraphrased it in a way that I think is not really doing justice to it.
Do you think this is an accurate summary of what I actually said:
Yes, you can always find some scientists on either side who have potential biases or conflicts of interest. However, when things get as lopsided as they have on AGW, it would indeed be difficult to show that a large percentage of all those scientists who subscribe to the theory have such biases. Whereas, it unfortunately does not seem difficult to show that is true of the handful of scientists who do not. You were able to come up with one example with Hansen, which is actually stretching it anyway. What happened with Hansen is that he was awarded a prize by the Heinz Foundation in the category of the environment because they thought his scientific work on climate change has been so important. (Sort of like the Nobel, they apparently give out awards in several different categories each year.)
Let’s look by contrast at some of the most notable skeptics. If we start with Paul Reiter, since you brought him up, he happens to be on Scientific and Economic Advisory Council of the libertarian think-tank Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, which has received over $750,000 funding from Exxon/Mobil. He is also a writer on the Tech Central Station, a libertarian website.
In fact, if you look at the other names on that link, you will find that amongst the 61 signatories on that recent letter sent to the Prime Minister of Canada and reading like a who-who’s of the so-called “skeptics”, there are many, many such connections. To name a few that I happen to know off of the top of my head, Patrick Michaels receives funding from Western Fuels Association and is a fellow at the Cato Institute. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas are associated both with Tech Central Station and the George C. Marshall Institute. And, the list goes on and on.
Of course, just because a scientist has these connections doesn’t mean their science is bad or wrong. However, when you discover that a large majority of the small cadre of scientists saying that the IPCC, the NAS, and all these other respected scientific organizations are wrong have these sorts of connections, I don’t think it is that hard to conclude that perhaps the strongest biases are more likely to be with these scientists rather than the rest of the community. It is rather like that joke about a mother who watches a military procession with her son march by a notes, “Look, everybody is out of step but my Johnny!”
Well, first of all, the latest report puts the most probable range as being 2 to 4.5 C. Second of all, while the range hasn’t shrunk that much, I think most scientists would argue that their confidence in that the true value lies within that range has gone up. Third of all, I think you could damn them either way. If the range had significantly changed over time, you’d say, “How can we believe them when it used to be that they used to claim the range was X to Y and they now claim it is Q to R. Those nutty scientists are always changing their minds and back in the 70s they were predicting a new ice age!”
I would ask readers of this exchange who are wondering about what to believe to ask themselves this question: “Let’s suppose that in fact the science of climate change was correct but that there was a small but vocal group of scientists who, for whatever reasons, disagreed and had their voices amplified by fossil fuel interests and political think-tanks and the like, how would this differ from the situation we have now?” My argument, of course, would be that it really wouldn’t differ at all. There would still be these sorts of arguments. There would still be the Paul Reiter’s and Chris Landsea’s of the world who were critical of…or felt somehow slighted by…the IPCC. In fact, if such people didn’t exist, it would be truly bizarre! (Obviously, analogies to the evolution / intelligent design debate make this even more clear.)
My argument is not that the only possible reason for them to believe this is that it is true. It is rather that the best way we know how to make public policy decisions about science-related issues is to use the best scientific conclusions that are available at the time. Yes, scientists don’t have a 100% track record (although I should note that even your specific example is more complicated than the sort of simplistic way in which it is often presented), but does that mean that we just ignore the best science available? That we ignore the very organizations like the IPCC and the NAS that we have set up to specifically advise on science effecting public policy when we don’t like their conclusions? That we decide that in this case it must be that their conclusions are tainted because not every single scientist agrees (just like not every single scientist agrees on evolution)?
And, I am saying that the smart money would be on the scientific consensus being correct. And, in this particular case, when there has been consider opportunity for industries with lots of money to fund scientists to come up with other credible hypotheses and most of what they have come up with is (quite frankly) garbage and nitpicking of the consensus theory, the smart money would even be more strongly on that consensus being correct.
Perhaps, but this is a different argument from the objection raised on Post 710.
In that post, the following was said:
It’s clear that climate scientists and the IPCC do in fact stand to benefit from public concern about AGW.
The new argument seems to be that scientists are trained to be objective and unbiased and therefore are unlikely to be influenced by such interests.
With respect to this argument, please let me ask you a question: How can I tell the difference between a scientist who is objective, unprejudiced, etc. and a scientist who is biased, etc.?
The argument is that even if there is financial gains from advocating AGW, it is so tenuous and diluted that no scientist would think of risking his/her career for it. It’s akin to the claim that doctors have an incentive to let patients die so their organs could be harvested for transplants. I’m sure organ transplants are profitable, and killing one patient to harvest several organs would probably bring in more money to that hospital than saving that patient. But the doctor overseeing the dying patient does not benefit personally, and risks accusations of malpractice. Not to mention the fact that it is morally reprehensible.
Incorrect results will be exposed as such by lack of collaborating results from other researchers. Of course it may never become clear whether the incorrect results were results of personal bias or honest mistakes, and I don’t think it really matters. When you have thousands of researchers working in hundreds of different universities and institutions, all trying to compete against each other for funding and recognition, it’s just not possible to get away with incorrect results. At least, not for long.
Of course, if you look at what the so-called “skeptics” have been saying for the last 15 years or so, they have been making this sort of claim constantly. Just as between each IPCC report, they claim that the last report is already out-of-date and there is now important new evidence that AGW is not a problem. Then the new IPCC report comes out and concludes that the evidence for AGW has gotten stronger.
In the meantime, scientific organizations like the NAS weigh in ever more strongly on the side of AGW and business coalitions set up to create doubt about the science like the Global Climate Coalition fall apart and many of their former members (such as BP and Ford) accept the science of AGW.
Yup…it sure looks like things are moving in the direction that you claim! :rolleyes:
But you do agree that the scientist himself/herself does not derive any personal benefit, i.e. a competitive edge against his/her colleagues? So you are saying is, some scientists are selfish enough to produce biased results for financial gain, but at the same time selfless enough that he’d do this for the benefit of all his colleagues? No, I just don’t see it happening.
No, I don’t agree. But it may not matter. Let me give you an example to illustrate:
Suppose that there was a policy proposal for a general increase in research funding that would allow universities to hire more tenured professors. Suppose that you polled 100 grad students from around the country and asked them the following question:
Do you think that the policy proposal is good for America? Please don’t consider your personal circumstances, – just tell me if you think that the proposal would be good for America?
As a baseline, you could poll 100 judges from around the country and ask the same question.
Do you have any doubt that the vast vast majority of grad students would agree that the proposal is good for America? Of course not. Because that’s just human nature. For most people, when they know which side the bread is buttered on, it has the potential to affect their judgment.
