4 ms·

Do you have any actual evidence that climate researchers are paid "to confirm AGW"? (I take it that by that you mean that if they published work, of equal quali

by gjm11 17y ago

Do you have any actual evidence that climate researchers are paid "to confirm AGW"? (I take it that by that you mean that if they published work, of equal quality to what they actually publish, that cast doubt on AGW then they would get paid less or fired.) Note 1: saying "climategate" doesn't constitute presenting evidence; pointing to something in the pilfered emails that says (e.g.) "Of course I have to fudge this because otherwise I'll lose my job" and that isn't clearly a joke would constitute presenting evidence. Note 2: observing that very few people who get paid to do climate science are denying AGW doesn't constitute presenting evidence either. Very few people who get paid to do biology are denying evolution, but that isn't because they're paid to confirm evolution; it's because evolution is, in fact, correct, and studying enough biology to get paid for doing it usually leads people to realise this. So you'd need to rule out that sort of explanation in the case of climate science.

anamax 17y ago
> Do you have any actual evidence that climate researchers are paid "to confirm AGW"? (I take it that by that you mean that if they published work, of equal quality to what they actually publish, that cast doubt on AGW then they would get paid less or fired.) What do you think that rigging the peer-review process accomplished? > it's because evolution is, in fact, correct, and studying enough biology to get paid for doing it usually leads people to realise this. So you'd need to rule out that sort of explanation in the case of climate science. Are you asserting that AGW is as "settled" as evolution? If not, the analogy doesn't hold and neither does the conclusion that you'd like to impose. Climate researchers outside of CRU are acknowledging that the thumb was on the scale. Is denying that really the hill that you want to defend? In science, being a "good person" doesn't count as evidence. Neither does "the folks who disagree are bad people". AGW may turn out to be real (although that's looking unlikely), but it will take us much longer to find that out because "good people" behaved badly and did cargo cult science. Which reminds me - why do we consider them good people? In addition to rigging peer review and trying to stack grant committees, it's pretty much SOP to add some blather about "consistent with AGW" to almost anything these days, in part because that's how the money flows. Of course, this isn't new. We saw the same thing with AI and "computers".
- gjm11 17y ago
  I think it's extremely unclear to what extent anyone (1) attempted to rig the peer review process and (2) succeeded. In any case, even a very badly rigged peer review process would not make it true that climate researchers are "paid to confirm AGW" unless everyone knows that the process is rigged. I think that is clearly not so. No, I am not asserting that AGW is as settled as evolution. I'm pointing out that "everyone being paid to work on this agrees with X, which shows that you can't get on in the field without agreeing with X, which shows that there's a bias against non-X" is a lousy argument, because in the case X=evolution it produces a result that is (to reasonable people) not credible. Note for the avoidance of doubt: I was attempting to pre-empt that argument, not accusing you of having made it. (The cases X=evolution and X=AGW are somewhat parallel, though certainly not identical. In both cases there is a robust scientific consensus challenged by a minority. In both cases at least some of the challenging minority have an obvious reason for making the challenge that doesn't have much to do with truth. In both cases the challenging minority has strong ties to a particular political group -- the same group in both cases, as it happens. In both cases the challenging minority accuses the majority of having similarly non-truth-directed motivations, and in both cases it's not terribly clear what those are really supposed to be.) I don't know what non-CRU people you are referring to, nor what acknowledgement they've made that "the thumb was on the scale", so I can't comment on your statement about that. The stuff about "good people" and "bad people" is a red herring; neither I nor anyone upthread made any claim even slightly resembling "these people are Good and those are Bad, therefore these are Right and those are Wrong". Eschenbach has a clear incentive to do whatever it takes to make AGW look less likely; that's true whether he's a good person, a bad person, or (like maybe 99.9% or so of the human race) a mixture of the two. And, unless he is an incorruptible saint concerned with nothing but truth, it is rational to apply some discount to things he says that make AGW look less likely: not because he is a bad person and bad people never tell the truth, but because he is a (probably quite rational) person with a strong incentive to say such things even if they are wrong or misleading. Similarly, no one (I hope) is saying that mainstream climate scientists must be right because they are good people and good people never say false things. But I will happily make the following argument: Imagine someone in the field of climate science who is inclined to put his or her own interests ahead of truth, and who doesn't mind doing bad or dishonest science for that purpose. Do you think that person is more likely to turn to Shell or the AEI or the Republican party, or to Greenpeace or Al Gore? Where is the readier flow of money likely to be found? Is your last paragraph just vague handwaving, or is there an actual argument there? On the face of it it looks almost like you're suggesting that the reason why climate scientists almost all defend AGW is that people writing papers on other subjects tend to say "and by the way this is consistent with AGW" whether it is or not, but every part of that looks very silly so you probably have something more sensible in mind.

by gjm11 17y ago

anamax 17y ago

> Do you have any actual evidence that climate researchers are paid "to confirm AGW"? (I take it that by that you mean that if they published work, of equal quality to what they actually publish, that cast doubt on AGW then they would get paid less or fired.) What do you think that rigging the peer-review process accomplished? > it's because evolution is, in fact, correct, and studying enough biology to get paid for doing it usually leads people to realise this. So you'd need to rule out that sort of explanation in the case of climate science. Are you asserting that AGW is as "settled" as evolution? If not, the analogy doesn't hold and neither does the conclusion that you'd like to impose. Climate researchers outside of CRU are acknowledging that the thumb was on the scale. Is denying that really the hill that you want to defend? In science, being a "good person" doesn't count as evidence. Neither does "the folks who disagree are bad people". AGW may turn out to be real (although that's looking unlikely), but it will take us much longer to find that out because "good people" behaved badly and did cargo cult science. Which reminds me - why do we consider them good people? In addition to rigging peer review and trying to stack grant committees, it's pretty much SOP to add some blather about "consistent with AGW" to almost anything these days, in part because that's how the money flows. Of course, this isn't new. We saw the same thing with AI and "computers".

gjm11 17y ago
I think it's extremely unclear to what extent anyone (1) attempted to rig the peer review process and (2) succeeded. In any case, even a very badly rigged peer review process would not make it true that climate researchers are "paid to confirm AGW" unless everyone knows that the process is rigged. I think that is clearly not so. No, I am not asserting that AGW is as settled as evolution. I'm pointing out that "everyone being paid to work on this agrees with X, which shows that you can't get on in the field without agreeing with X, which shows that there's a bias against non-X" is a lousy argument, because in the case X=evolution it produces a result that is (to reasonable people) not credible. Note for the avoidance of doubt: I was attempting to pre-empt that argument, not accusing you of having made it. (The cases X=evolution and X=AGW are somewhat parallel, though certainly not identical. In both cases there is a robust scientific consensus challenged by a minority. In both cases at least some of the challenging minority have an obvious reason for making the challenge that doesn't have much to do with truth. In both cases the challenging minority has strong ties to a particular political group -- the same group in both cases, as it happens. In both cases the challenging minority accuses the majority of having similarly non-truth-directed motivations, and in both cases it's not terribly clear what those are really supposed to be.) I don't know what non-CRU people you are referring to, nor what acknowledgement they've made that "the thumb was on the scale", so I can't comment on your statement about that. The stuff about "good people" and "bad people" is a red herring; neither I nor anyone upthread made any claim even slightly resembling "these people are Good and those are Bad, therefore these are Right and those are Wrong". Eschenbach has a clear incentive to do whatever it takes to make AGW look less likely; that's true whether he's a good person, a bad person, or (like maybe 99.9% or so of the human race) a mixture of the two. And, unless he is an incorruptible saint concerned with nothing but truth, it is rational to apply some discount to things he says that make AGW look less likely: not because he is a bad person and bad people never tell the truth, but because he is a (probably quite rational) person with a strong incentive to say such things even if they are wrong or misleading. Similarly, no one (I hope) is saying that mainstream climate scientists must be right because they are good people and good people never say false things. But I will happily make the following argument: Imagine someone in the field of climate science who is inclined to put his or her own interests ahead of truth, and who doesn't mind doing bad or dishonest science for that purpose. Do you think that person is more likely to turn to Shell or the AEI or the Republican party, or to Greenpeace or Al Gore? Where is the readier flow of money likely to be found? Is your last paragraph just vague handwaving, or is there an actual argument there? On the face of it it looks almost like you're suggesting that the reason why climate scientists almost all defend AGW is that people writing papers on other subjects tend to say "and by the way this is consistent with AGW" whether it is or not, but every part of that looks very silly so you probably have something more sensible in mind.