Well said, Daniel! The only thing I might add is that, if one looked carefully, one might find an apparent bias against research that fails to find evidence for human-caused global warming or that finds evidence against it. This isn't because it's not PC to say that global warming isn't real or isn't caused by humans. Rather, it's because (1) null results are less likely to be published, regardless of the topic, and (2) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (usually). Failing to find evidence for global warming or for a human role in it is a null result, and it will be harder to publish if the research methods and analysis aren't impeccable. Similarly, at this point, the evidence for human-caused global warming is strong, so a study that yields a contrary result had better have solid methodology, if the authors want to publish.
One other possible source of apparent bias (or maybe real bias) is our perception of what the moneyed interests would rather believe (and fund). If every dollar in the world got to vote on whether or not human-caused global warming is a real problem that we need to fix, I think we'd see a landslide victory for global-warming skeptics, and I think most scientists would predict the same result. If this really is our perception, I'd expect that results inconsistent with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis get extra scrutiny from reviewers on the grounds that any scientist that can be bought will most likely be bought by the wealthier side of the debate. Jim Crants On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Daniel Muth <dj...@virginia.edu> wrote: > Well it's undeniably true that an overwhelming number of solicitations in > the field specifically ask for this particular connection. It's also true > more and more in the literature that any paper no matter how loosely > connected to climate change seems to feel obligated to talk about it. > There > are probably many scientists, particularly in the carbon game, that > wouldn't > be here but for the fact that overall funding in the environmental field is > so minuscule (compared to say that apportioned for health or defense) that > one needs to pick spots where they can actually work. Like it or not, > money > leads research, but if environmental scientists were only interested in > landing fat grants, they'd be MUCH better off in another field. You'll > find > more pvc and duct tape in an ecology lab than in a plumbers van, mostly > because we can't afford anything else (and hell it works!). > > I've also never come across a solicitation that told it's recipients what > to > find. As long as the methods are sound, scientists are generally free to > make their own conclusions. This is one of the areas in which science is > fundamentally misunderstood by the public, as the rigorous progression of a > novel idea to a paradigm is not something that happens without serious > challenges from within the community itself. There isn't a greater > community of skeptics on the planet! What's more, skepticism is encouraged > within the realm of intelligent debate. There isn't one of us that > wouldn't > like to conclusively prove that climate change isn't happening, which is > why > the near consensus on the topic (at least with regards to the overall > trend) > is so impressive. > > I'm not aware of many scientists who have somehow enriched themselves in > climate change research. To me this makes the money claims levied by the > disenfranchised millionaires (billionaires?) in the fossil fuel industry, > beyond absurd. > > > > What detractors misunderstand is that if someone is getting rich off > climate > science it sure isn't us. > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: > > > ECOLOG: > > > > One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate change > > research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a major > > motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are often > > cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, "all you have to do > to > > get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global > warming,' > > or some similar buzz-phrase." > > > > To what extent do you think this might be true? > > > > WT > > >
