10 ms·

>scientists whose ideas fell outside the dogma recounted how, for decades, believers in the dominant hypothesis suppressed research on alternative ideas: They i

>scientists whose ideas fell outside the dogma recounted how, for decades, believers in the dominant hypothesis suppressed research on alternative ideas: They influenced what studies got published in top journals, which scientists got funded, who got tenure, and who got speaking slots at reputation-buffing scientific conferences Not quite in topic, but Is it really such a stretch to acknowledge that the same forces in academia might bias climate science too? Except as another commenter pointed out, it doesn't take a shadowy cabal. Just a strong trend that individuals can believe in for ethical or moral reasons. Even when it becomes dogmatic.

BorisVSchmid 7y ago
I can imagine that a dominant hypothesis could play a role in the predictions of future trajectories of climate on earth, but not so much for things like measuring past temperature / sea level rise. To twist the analogy back to Alzheimer - all these scientists still agreed on the patient-level diagnosis of Alzheimer.
baq 7y ago
Anyone can put some co2 and a thermometer in a sealed container. A second one without additional ghgs, too. Alzheimer’s probably more difficult to understand and you have to trust somebody.
- allovernow 7y ago
  I really, really think you're oversimplifying climate science.
  - baq 7y ago
    that's how it started over a hundred years ago, it's harder to start seeing progress on treating Alzheimer's.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    Sure, but in the same way that Newton’s laws of motion are an oversimplification of rocket science while still being enough to tell you that it works.
mturmon 7y ago
Bias in what sense? There is overwhelming physical evidence that climate is changing ... it’s not really a “cabal” situation. Can you detect any evidence of any forces attempting to bias climate science? Perhaps you mean energy companies?
missosoup 7y ago
It's already happening. Not so much in climate science, but in climate activism. Banning plastic straws, planting trees, etc. are popular yet entirely ineffective measures. Actually effective measures like rolling out nuclear power are unpopular and yet most climate scientists agree that we're likely boned without it. I urge everyone to look at tools like [1] to get an idea of what it takes to deal with climate change. [1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.6 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7....
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  The real proposed solutions to reduce emissions are politically too costly, so politicians grab for straws to try to show they do anything at all. But if you start supporting carbon tax made to decrease emissions, I'll play along with supporting nuclear.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
qqqwerty 7y ago
I will acknowledge that those forces may be in play. But I will also ask you to acknowledge that oil extraction has and continues to make certain people, companies, and governments immensely wealthy and powerful and that those groups are very interested in keeping the status quo. Those people/companies/governments have the power and resources to finance research into climate change that would support their narrative. And by all accounts they have been doing that. But despite those efforts the scientific consensus supporting climate change has remained. So yeah, science isn't perfect and we have seen cases in the past where group think has held back progress and discovery. But we have also seen plenty of examples of corporations and trade groups bending and influencing the scientific narrative to their benefit (see the low-fat discussion in this thread). And in the case of climate change, the most monetarily interested party is literally the wealthiest industry in the history of the world. So I think it is safe to say that the current consensus is facing plenty of scrutiny.
- ckosidows 7y ago
  Does this argument prove anything? An enormous industry that wants to disprove man-made climate change science doesn't prove climate science is iron-tight. There are also many vested interests, at this point, in proving popular climate science to be true. This can be companies, politicians, and even just people who are invested in the hypothesis (either professionally or personally). There are industries who oppose the hypothesis that climate change is man-made for personal reasons, but there are people on the other side who have similar interests. There is scrutiny about man-made climate change, but I've often seen such scrutiny lambasted by people who are too vested in the idea that man has solely created climate change. Is it possible that, despite push-back from oil companies, there is still group-think happening with climate change science? As a disclaimer I believe a significant portion of climate change is man-made but also that part of it can be attributed to natural changes. I _definitely_ think we need to act to save ourselves from climate change. Climate change science has a lot of momentum right now and perhaps certain ideas have been given undue recognition or derision due to their conclusions found.
  - qqqwerty 7y ago
    The key mechanism that enables 'group think' in academia is access (or lack of access) to funding for research. Generally, funding for research is fairly limited relative to the number of interested researchers (ask any grad student). The control over journal publications and conference speaking slots is only useful in that it enables researchers to increase their odds of receiving future funding. If one is able to get funding without those credentials, say by going to industry players with aligned interests, then the 'academic cabals' really don't have the power and influence to be a 'cabal'. It is worth noting, that part of the reason the Alzheimer 'cabal' existed in the first place was because the pharmaceutical industry was willing to go along with it. And part of the reason the 'cabal' is finally falling apart is because the industry is no longer willing to fund the research. Here is a fun question for you (or anyone who is skeptical). Can you name one example where industry and academics were diametrically opposed on a particular topic, and where it turned out that the academics were wrong? I can point out quite a few examples where the opposite was true, but I am struggling to think of a single example that would qualify the above prompt.
jajag 7y ago
There's certainly evidence of bias in climate science, but if anything it's been towards understating the effect [1] [1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists...
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  according to climate predictions we'd be underwater today in pescara but they would have not be an issue as we would also have dief of all the cancer from the ozone layer depletion. change is real, damn this winter we got 15+ degree Celsius instead of the ten cm snow we usually got when I was a kid, the local effects are quite evident, and the trajectory spells real dangers, but past predictions were definitely overstating the effects, no wonder people have doubts about current predictions
  - morsch 7y ago
    You mention the ozone layer depletion as evidence of past exaggeration when in fact it's evidence of how a concerted, international effort can deal with an environmental issue.
    - LoSboccacc 7y ago
      here the thing: these are both true, by definition, states reacted and people didn't cook up. but people only see what resonates with their belief and immediately attak anyone poking at the notion that it'll happen again for co2, despite all the evidences from the past
LoSboccacc 7y ago
maybe but the topic is quite polarised now and the foundamentalists are tolerated to avoid giving munition to the deniers, which might cause even bigger divisions on the public opinion.
resoluteteeth 7y ago
> Not quite in topic, but Is it really such a stretch to acknowledge that the same forces in academia might bias climate science too? Except as another commenter pointed out, it doesn't take a shadowy cabal. Just a strong trend that individuals can believe in for ethical or moral reasons. Even when it becomes dogmatic. Sure, but bear in mind that in the case of the amyloid plaque hypothesis, there wasn't really any bad science going on. It's not as if false results were being published (after all the drugs kept failing in trials); the problem is simply that too many resources were focused on research based on a hypothesis that didn't pan out. Unfortunately, if there was something similar happening with climate change that would still mean that all the published results are correct and climate change is real, but maybe too much effort is being spent on solutions that aren't realistic (e.g. carbon capture).
oblio 7y ago
> Not quite in topic, but Is it really such a stretch to acknowledge that the same forces in academia might bias climate science too? What's the downside to "believing" in climate science, though? Let's say it's all a hoax. The way I see it, the worst thing is funds are diverted for things that don't help us that much. But what's the real down side to climate science for the general population? I don't think anyone wants to inhale exhaust gases, have coal power plants in their neighborhood, plastics pollute almost everything they touch and they do it long term... The way I see it, if climate science is correct, everybody wins. If it's not correct, we'll be mildly inconvenienced for 20 years, until it's debunked for good. To me the huge uproar about climate science kind of proves that it's just hated by a hornets' nest of very powerful people, most likely because they're about to lose a lot of money or gasp have to work harder to make that money :-)
- will4274 7y ago
  > What's the downside to "believing" in climate science, though? Let's say it's all a hoax. The way I see it, the worst thing is funds are diverted for things that don't help us that much. The "green new deal" is estimated to cost between $50 and $100 trillion over ten years. The current US budget is about $4.5 trillion per year. What else could the US government do with between 100% and 200% of the current budget? How about end poverty, build the best education system in the world, land on Mars, develop fusion energy to solve the upcoming energy crisis, develop desalination technology to solve the upcoming water crisis, or cure some of the most deadly diseases around today? The cost to getting climate change wrong is massive in both directions.
  - oblio 7y ago
    > How about end poverty, build the best education system in the world, land on Mars, develop fusion energy to solve the upcoming energy crisis, develop desalination technology to solve the upcoming water crisis, or cure some of the most deadly diseases around today? Well, some of the things you list are at least partially related to climate change. For example desalination technologies looks a lot like stuff you'd need if fresh water became scarce. Fusion energy would also be environmentally-friendly, landing on Mars could be a decent plan B for humanity or at least a way of off-loading some of that economic activity elsewhere. The bits about poverty, education and curing diseases seem to be quite independent from any climate science thing... I forgot to mention something, climate science is not a US-specific thing. Everyone is taking a stance and therefore betting on something. If these bets are not hedged, those who bet on the losing side will be absolutely crushed economically by those who bet on the winning side.
danmaz74 7y ago
Climate science is heavily politicised, because its findings have a massive impact on our economies. But the strongest economic interest is in downplaying global warming, not overplaying it. As a matter of fact, scientists that have a contrarian view towards the consensus have received ample publicity.
- Udik 7y ago
  > the strongest economic interest is in downplaying global warming, not overplaying it The strongest economic interest might be for inaction (but let's not forget that economic costs are often human costs in the end). On the other hand, as far as information goes, the pressure is towards overstating the risks of climate change: it publishes articles with catchy abstracts, it connects boring researches to a hot new topic, it gives newspapers strong headlines that pique the readers' interest, it gives millions of activists something to fight for. The result is a mix of inaction and panic.
scarejunba 7y ago
There are sufficient resources for alternative research into climate change to flourish. In the end, those who control the money control the studying, and there are enough people who control money who want the other part studied.

BorisVSchmid 7y ago

I can imagine that a dominant hypothesis could play a role in the predictions of future trajectories of climate on earth, but not so much for things like measuring past temperature / sea level rise. To twist the analogy back to Alzheimer - all these scientists still agreed on the patient-level diagnosis of Alzheimer.

baq 7y ago

Anyone can put some co2 and a thermometer in a sealed container. A second one without additional ghgs, too. Alzheimer’s probably more difficult to understand and you have to trust somebody.

allovernow 7y ago
I really, really think you're oversimplifying climate science.
- baq 7y ago
  that's how it started over a hundred years ago, it's harder to start seeing progress on treating Alzheimer's.
- ben_w 7y ago
  Sure, but in the same way that Newton’s laws of motion are an oversimplification of rocket science while still being enough to tell you that it works.

mturmon 7y ago

Bias in what sense? There is overwhelming physical evidence that climate is changing ... it’s not really a “cabal” situation. Can you detect any evidence of any forces attempting to bias climate science? Perhaps you mean energy companies?

missosoup 7y ago

It's already happening. Not so much in climate science, but in climate activism. Banning plastic straws, planting trees, etc. are popular yet entirely ineffective measures. Actually effective measures like rolling out nuclear power are unpopular and yet most climate scientists agree that we're likely boned without it. I urge everyone to look at tools like [1] to get an idea of what it takes to deal with climate change. [1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.6 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7....

SiempreViernes 7y ago
The real proposed solutions to reduce emissions are politically too costly, so politicians grab for straws to try to show they do anything at all. But if you start supporting carbon tax made to decrease emissions, I'll play along with supporting nuclear.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

qqqwerty 7y ago

I will acknowledge that those forces may be in play. But I will also ask you to acknowledge that oil extraction has and continues to make certain people, companies, and governments immensely wealthy and powerful and that those groups are very interested in keeping the status quo. Those people/companies/governments have the power and resources to finance research into climate change that would support their narrative. And by all accounts they have been doing that. But despite those efforts the scientific consensus supporting climate change has remained. So yeah, science isn't perfect and we have seen cases in the past where group think has held back progress and discovery. But we have also seen plenty of examples of corporations and trade groups bending and influencing the scientific narrative to their benefit (see the low-fat discussion in this thread). And in the case of climate change, the most monetarily interested party is literally the wealthiest industry in the history of the world. So I think it is safe to say that the current consensus is facing plenty of scrutiny.

ckosidows 7y ago
Does this argument prove anything? An enormous industry that wants to disprove man-made climate change science doesn't prove climate science is iron-tight. There are also many vested interests, at this point, in proving popular climate science to be true. This can be companies, politicians, and even just people who are invested in the hypothesis (either professionally or personally). There are industries who oppose the hypothesis that climate change is man-made for personal reasons, but there are people on the other side who have similar interests. There is scrutiny about man-made climate change, but I've often seen such scrutiny lambasted by people who are too vested in the idea that man has solely created climate change. Is it possible that, despite push-back from oil companies, there is still group-think happening with climate change science? As a disclaimer I believe a significant portion of climate change is man-made but also that part of it can be attributed to natural changes. I _definitely_ think we need to act to save ourselves from climate change. Climate change science has a lot of momentum right now and perhaps certain ideas have been given undue recognition or derision due to their conclusions found.
- qqqwerty 7y ago
  The key mechanism that enables 'group think' in academia is access (or lack of access) to funding for research. Generally, funding for research is fairly limited relative to the number of interested researchers (ask any grad student). The control over journal publications and conference speaking slots is only useful in that it enables researchers to increase their odds of receiving future funding. If one is able to get funding without those credentials, say by going to industry players with aligned interests, then the 'academic cabals' really don't have the power and influence to be a 'cabal'. It is worth noting, that part of the reason the Alzheimer 'cabal' existed in the first place was because the pharmaceutical industry was willing to go along with it. And part of the reason the 'cabal' is finally falling apart is because the industry is no longer willing to fund the research. Here is a fun question for you (or anyone who is skeptical). Can you name one example where industry and academics were diametrically opposed on a particular topic, and where it turned out that the academics were wrong? I can point out quite a few examples where the opposite was true, but I am struggling to think of a single example that would qualify the above prompt.

jajag 7y ago

There's certainly evidence of bias in climate science, but if anything it's been towards understating the effect [1] [1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists...

LoSboccacc 7y ago
according to climate predictions we'd be underwater today in pescara but they would have not be an issue as we would also have dief of all the cancer from the ozone layer depletion. change is real, damn this winter we got 15+ degree Celsius instead of the ten cm snow we usually got when I was a kid, the local effects are quite evident, and the trajectory spells real dangers, but past predictions were definitely overstating the effects, no wonder people have doubts about current predictions
- morsch 7y ago
  You mention the ozone layer depletion as evidence of past exaggeration when in fact it's evidence of how a concerted, international effort can deal with an environmental issue.
  - LoSboccacc 7y ago
    here the thing: these are both true, by definition, states reacted and people didn't cook up. but people only see what resonates with their belief and immediately attak anyone poking at the notion that it'll happen again for co2, despite all the evidences from the past

LoSboccacc 7y ago

maybe but the topic is quite polarised now and the foundamentalists are tolerated to avoid giving munition to the deniers, which might cause even bigger divisions on the public opinion.

resoluteteeth 7y ago

> Not quite in topic, but Is it really such a stretch to acknowledge that the same forces in academia might bias climate science too? Except as another commenter pointed out, it doesn't take a shadowy cabal. Just a strong trend that individuals can believe in for ethical or moral reasons. Even when it becomes dogmatic. Sure, but bear in mind that in the case of the amyloid plaque hypothesis, there wasn't really any bad science going on. It's not as if false results were being published (after all the drugs kept failing in trials); the problem is simply that too many resources were focused on research based on a hypothesis that didn't pan out. Unfortunately, if there was something similar happening with climate change that would still mean that all the published results are correct and climate change is real, but maybe too much effort is being spent on solutions that aren't realistic (e.g. carbon capture).

oblio 7y ago

> Not quite in topic, but Is it really such a stretch to acknowledge that the same forces in academia might bias climate science too? What's the downside to "believing" in climate science, though? Let's say it's all a hoax. The way I see it, the worst thing is funds are diverted for things that don't help us that much. But what's the real down side to climate science for the general population? I don't think anyone wants to inhale exhaust gases, have coal power plants in their neighborhood, plastics pollute almost everything they touch and they do it long term... The way I see it, if climate science is correct, everybody wins. If it's not correct, we'll be mildly inconvenienced for 20 years, until it's debunked for good. To me the huge uproar about climate science kind of proves that it's just hated by a hornets' nest of very powerful people, most likely because they're about to lose a lot of money or gasp have to work harder to make that money :-)

will4274 7y ago
> What's the downside to "believing" in climate science, though? Let's say it's all a hoax. The way I see it, the worst thing is funds are diverted for things that don't help us that much. The "green new deal" is estimated to cost between $50 and $100 trillion over ten years. The current US budget is about $4.5 trillion per year. What else could the US government do with between 100% and 200% of the current budget? How about end poverty, build the best education system in the world, land on Mars, develop fusion energy to solve the upcoming energy crisis, develop desalination technology to solve the upcoming water crisis, or cure some of the most deadly diseases around today? The cost to getting climate change wrong is massive in both directions.
- oblio 7y ago
  > How about end poverty, build the best education system in the world, land on Mars, develop fusion energy to solve the upcoming energy crisis, develop desalination technology to solve the upcoming water crisis, or cure some of the most deadly diseases around today? Well, some of the things you list are at least partially related to climate change. For example desalination technologies looks a lot like stuff you'd need if fresh water became scarce. Fusion energy would also be environmentally-friendly, landing on Mars could be a decent plan B for humanity or at least a way of off-loading some of that economic activity elsewhere. The bits about poverty, education and curing diseases seem to be quite independent from any climate science thing... I forgot to mention something, climate science is not a US-specific thing. Everyone is taking a stance and therefore betting on something. If these bets are not hedged, those who bet on the losing side will be absolutely crushed economically by those who bet on the winning side.

danmaz74 7y ago

Climate science is heavily politicised, because its findings have a massive impact on our economies. But the strongest economic interest is in downplaying global warming, not overplaying it. As a matter of fact, scientists that have a contrarian view towards the consensus have received ample publicity.

Udik 7y ago
> the strongest economic interest is in downplaying global warming, not overplaying it The strongest economic interest might be for inaction (but let's not forget that economic costs are often human costs in the end). On the other hand, as far as information goes, the pressure is towards overstating the risks of climate change: it publishes articles with catchy abstracts, it connects boring researches to a hot new topic, it gives newspapers strong headlines that pique the readers' interest, it gives millions of activists something to fight for. The result is a mix of inaction and panic.

scarejunba 7y ago

There are sufficient resources for alternative research into climate change to flourish. In the end, those who control the money control the studying, and there are enough people who control money who want the other part studied.