4 ms·

This disgraceful behavior from academia is shredding the credibility of the entire enterprise. How is anyone supposed to trust any unintuitive conclusions with

This disgraceful behavior from academia is shredding the credibility of the entire enterprise. How is anyone supposed to trust any unintuitive conclusions with expensive implications --- for example, on climate change --- when the academic community has demonstrated a propensity to shriek at and censor unorthodox ideas instead of contest them on the merits?

zeth___ 8y ago
Science has been hijacked from the inside for a long time now. While it's better than trusting straight up corporate releases, there are thumbs on the scales that push studies to get the results those giving the funding want. Social science is particularly bad at this, to the point I doubt any research done since the 1950s isn't ideologically tainted, at that time due to the cold war and the need to discredit anything "communist".
- daodedickinson 8y ago
  There's way too much unmet need to discredit socialism right now. There was a failed meager attempt circa 1950 that ended with McCarthy's character successfully assassinated and socialists in charge of the schools so they could slowly take power even as their ideas obviously destroy wherever they gain it quickly.
briandear 8y ago
This is specificly why I am a climate skeptic. Not a denier, mind you, but a skeptic when it comes to anything purporting to be “settled science.” It’s specifically because there is a strong resistance to anything damaging to the status quo, as supported by grant funding and, to a lesser extent, political agenda. Frankly, it’s hard to trust academia on controversial topics.
- fnordsensei 8y ago
  With climate change though, it seems that the academic consensus is that humanity has an effect on the climate, while (some significant portion of) media seems to regularly depict it as more of a 50/50 up-in-the-air situation. In this article, it's not about media depiction vs academic consensus, but friction within academic sciences itself.
- semi-extrinsic 8y ago
  What we need to distinguish here is what exactly we're talking about being "settled science". Is "human CO2 emissions are causing an increased greenhouse effect and ocean acidification" settled science? Yes. Is "how much will that affect us and the planet at different time scales" settled science? Not completely, no. The climate system is incredibly hard to model. What scientists are doing in the latter regard is making their best estimates, seeing that these predict very bad things happening, and then saying we should work as hard as possible to reduce emissions. Which, incidentally, nobody is actually doing.
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    Well, reduce emissions and more seriously consider geoengineering. A lot of otherwise-reasonable climate researchers seem to have an unduly negative view of potential direct interventions in the climate.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      We may well be forced into geoengineering. Because, by the time enough people/firms/governments are sufficiently motivated, it'll be too late for anything else. Except adapting, I mean. But anyway, CO2 capture is the obviously safest bet. Adding shitloads of iron to the oceans, or injecting shitloads of SOx into the stratosphere, are just a little too likely to have serious downsides. Or putting screens at L1, for that matter.
      - zeth___ 8y ago
        The down side of this is that once carbon capture becomes viable the amount of CO2 Canada and Australia want in the atmosphere are very different. Should Canada take it as a declaration of war if Australia starts a program to reduce CO2 to 150 ppm?
        mirimir 8y ago
        That is an interesting question. By then, it seems likely that Canada will be part of the US. Or at least, that the northern US and Canada will have merged. And impacts do seem horrible for Australia. But damn, war over atmospheric CO2 management. What a trip.

zeth___ 8y ago

Science has been hijacked from the inside for a long time now. While it's better than trusting straight up corporate releases, there are thumbs on the scales that push studies to get the results those giving the funding want. Social science is particularly bad at this, to the point I doubt any research done since the 1950s isn't ideologically tainted, at that time due to the cold war and the need to discredit anything "communist".

daodedickinson 8y ago
There's way too much unmet need to discredit socialism right now. There was a failed meager attempt circa 1950 that ended with McCarthy's character successfully assassinated and socialists in charge of the schools so they could slowly take power even as their ideas obviously destroy wherever they gain it quickly.

briandear 8y ago

This is specificly why I am a climate skeptic. Not a denier, mind you, but a skeptic when it comes to anything purporting to be “settled science.” It’s specifically because there is a strong resistance to anything damaging to the status quo, as supported by grant funding and, to a lesser extent, political agenda. Frankly, it’s hard to trust academia on controversial topics.

fnordsensei 8y ago
With climate change though, it seems that the academic consensus is that humanity has an effect on the climate, while (some significant portion of) media seems to regularly depict it as more of a 50/50 up-in-the-air situation. In this article, it's not about media depiction vs academic consensus, but friction within academic sciences itself.
semi-extrinsic 8y ago
What we need to distinguish here is what exactly we're talking about being "settled science". Is "human CO2 emissions are causing an increased greenhouse effect and ocean acidification" settled science? Yes. Is "how much will that affect us and the planet at different time scales" settled science? Not completely, no. The climate system is incredibly hard to model. What scientists are doing in the latter regard is making their best estimates, seeing that these predict very bad things happening, and then saying we should work as hard as possible to reduce emissions. Which, incidentally, nobody is actually doing.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  Well, reduce emissions and more seriously consider geoengineering. A lot of otherwise-reasonable climate researchers seem to have an unduly negative view of potential direct interventions in the climate.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    We may well be forced into geoengineering. Because, by the time enough people/firms/governments are sufficiently motivated, it'll be too late for anything else. Except adapting, I mean. But anyway, CO2 capture is the obviously safest bet. Adding shitloads of iron to the oceans, or injecting shitloads of SOx into the stratosphere, are just a little too likely to have serious downsides. Or putting screens at L1, for that matter.
    - zeth___ 8y ago
      The down side of this is that once carbon capture becomes viable the amount of CO2 Canada and Australia want in the atmosphere are very different. Should Canada take it as a declaration of war if Australia starts a program to reduce CO2 to 150 ppm?
      - mirimir 8y ago
        That is an interesting question. By then, it seems likely that Canada will be part of the US. Or at least, that the northern US and Canada will have merged. And impacts do seem horrible for Australia. But damn, war over atmospheric CO2 management. What a trip.