Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] what kind of scientific suppression is this?



In reading this discussion I saw an argument that I have seen many times in the global warming debate. Here it is:

Rick Tarara wrote:
But it has now become in the self-interest of the climate scientists to push Global Warming scenarios that get them more funding.
So my question for Rick, or anyone else that wants to speak up, is about whether this is really a valid argument. This is not a question about the merits of climate change science, but about the validity of the above criticism. I would say that this is not a valid argument, for the following reasons:

First, there is no question that "success" in a scientific research effort leads to further funding. This is true in all scientific endeavors, yet somehow scientific progress gets made anyway. Are we really to believe that "climate scientists" (who are presented here as a monolithic group) are swayed by money more than scientists that study new drugs, or new building materials? The ideal of the current scientific system is that through the peer review process, even biases created by money, prestige or ego can be ferreted out and progress can be made. Why would this system, which can certainly be criticized, still be considered effective in other areas, but be suspect in the area of climate change?

Thus, the second problem I see with this argument is that it requires we believe in either a vast scientific conspiracy or that the global warming doubters are poorly funded. It seems absurd to say that funding can only be maintained by agreeing with anthropogenic global warming. I think a recent post to this list pointed out that you can get modest cash for simply offering opinions that criticize the majority view. Imagine what you could get paid for producing peer-reviewed science challenging that view. So if the opposing viewpoint can easily be funded, why do so few peer-reviewed articles go against the consensus viewpoint? I guess the only other explanation would be that all the "peers" that do the reviewing are so biased and self-serving that they won't allow any of those articles to reach the journals. This huge conspiracy also seems absurd.

So, can the claim really be made that funding is the "real" reason for the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change? For those who have posted that they have friends or colleagues who make convincing arguments against anthropogenic climate change, I would ask why we have not seen those arguments in peer-reviewed journals? The lack of this kind of publication leaves me with the impression that while these arguments may sound good, they don't hold scientific water.

What say you? Am I naive, or missing some major point here?

Jeff Loats