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] |
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 toSo my question for Rick, or anyone else that wants to speak up, is about
push
Global Warming scenarios that get them more funding.
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.