3 ms·
> They don't yet know what the results are going to be I think one of the points this article makes is that it is possible to look unconsciously for the result
by ErrantX 16y ago
> They don't yet know what the results are going to be
I think one of the points this article makes is that it is possible to look unconsciously for the results/proof you want. Science, especially this science, is rarely black/white. And if you are set on a specific shade of grey there is a natural positive bias towards that.
The argument is, I guess, that Federal funding is likely to favour scientists that support the shade of grey govt. wants to see. (again, a natural bias - though perhaps not so ethical...)
Not a conspiracy certainly; just a combination of slight bias and belief ending in a slightly off center result.
The problem with climate science is that to disagree with the GW theory right now means being branded a denier and a loon. So the bias shift is a emphasised.
- lutorm 16y agoYou are right about the bias, of course, though I think there's a much stronger bias in favor of theories you've come up with yourself. I think that in the context of climate science, if you make a statement that you disagree with "GW theory", you are making a statement that is very close to a blanket denial. Which specific facts of the theory do you disagree with, and what is your alternative? Are you disagreeing with the IPCC number for the climate sensitivity? Or are you disagreeing with the idea that anthropogenic global warming can be true? Those are very different, the first is well within the scientific mainstream, the second is not.