4 ms·

Exxon spends a ton on R&D, but very, very little of it is for climate science research. As far as I can tell, they're total amount of spending on climate scien

Exxon spends a ton on R&D, but very, very little of it is for climate science research. As far as I can tell, they're total amount of spending on climate science research the past few years was about $75,000 ( http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets/2009/05/26/exxon_admits_2008_funding_of_global_warm http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets/2009/05/26/e... ). The American Enterprise is not a climate research institute, it's a general purpose, conservative policy shop. It does not fund original climate research, it just funds policy experts who write issue papers. It's comparable institute on the left is the Brookings Institute ( which incidentally has a budget almost three times the size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution ). As far I can tell sum of the amount of money on the skeptic side, for actual climate researchers, consists of Steve McIntyre's retirement fund and a the salaries of a few tenured professors. On the other side, there are about 2,500 scientists who get their money through grant funding, and the people in charge of dispensing those grants are either governments or other non-skeptical, climate scientists. The overwhelming amount of the money goes to organizations and scientists who believe in AGW.

crux_ 17y ago
I took a broader view of "the other side" from the grandparent comment. If you're going to assert that within climate research itself there are very few dissenters; well, yes. That's what having a broad scientific consensus means, after all! On the advocacy/policy front, 'the other side' is more well-defined and it seems clear to me that claims for it being dwarfed are incorrect. (AEI vs Greenpeace was just an out-of-the-hat comparison of two organizations that advocate loudly on opposite sides of the issue; you can look at the lobbyists-by-industry chart for a less randomly-chosen view of the same thing.)
- bokonist 17y ago
  The problem is that the grant funded climate scientists all get more funding if they raise more alarm about global warming. Even more concerning, the distribution of grants, the peer review process, and the IPCC process are controlled by people like Mann and Phil Jones who study the issue like lawyers prosecuting a case, not like scientists proving a case. As a result, new scientists who are skeptical have little chance of getting grants, getting published, or getting tenure. Climate science has the same selection of the process as a priesthood, and that kind of selection process will produce the same errors as a religion. But right now, there is no alternative source providing funding. So all we hear about is a "consensus" when that consensus is really just a self-replicating group of believers.
  - crux_ 17y ago
    > The problem is that the grant funded climate scientists all get more funding if they raise more alarm about global warming. This is often asserted, but is it true? Most alarmism that I have seen is coming from the media or activist organizations; the few times I've seen scientist alarm has been when recent measurements have been worse in some way than their models predict. Further, let's assume the funding relationship is true. Are all these scientists that dishonest? Wouldn't honest ones be reigning in their colleagues? Why haven't we seen this? > Even more concerning, the distribution of grants, the peer review process, and the IPCC process are controlled by people like Mann and Phil Jones who study the issue like lawyers prosecuting a case, not like scientists proving a case. They're expected to present and defend their claims in the court of public opinion and in the realm of politics; why are you shocked and appalled that they are doing so? N.b. they're rather incompetent at public relations, unfortunately... > Climate science has the same selection of the process as a priesthood, and that kind of selection process will produce the same errors as a religion. Sure. So does astrophysics, evolutionary biology, ... How is the situation different from any other deep speciality? > So all we hear about is a "consensus" when that consensus is really just a self-replicating group of believers. Or, a consensus opinion under attack by politically motivated non-scientists. What test could be applied, or evidence provided, to tell the difference?
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      How is the situation different from any other deep speciality? I've never heard of influential people in quantum mechanics trying to get a journal shut down because it published something critical of many worlds. Or, a consensus opinion under attack by politically motivated non-scientists. What test could be applied, or evidence provided, to tell the difference? We could, I dunno, hack their email to try and see if they try to suppress dissenting opinions? We could also try to examine the science to see if it truly is as solid as they argue. Well, actually we can't, since they deleted the data (oops, I mean lost it accidentally, they never acted on the emails in which they said they would delete it)...
      - crux_ 17y ago

crux_ 17y ago

I took a broader view of "the other side" from the grandparent comment. If you're going to assert that within climate research itself there are very few dissenters; well, yes. That's what having a broad scientific consensus means, after all! On the advocacy/policy front, 'the other side' is more well-defined and it seems clear to me that claims for it being dwarfed are incorrect. (AEI vs Greenpeace was just an out-of-the-hat comparison of two organizations that advocate loudly on opposite sides of the issue; you can look at the lobbyists-by-industry chart for a less randomly-chosen view of the same thing.)

bokonist 17y ago
The problem is that the grant funded climate scientists all get more funding if they raise more alarm about global warming. Even more concerning, the distribution of grants, the peer review process, and the IPCC process are controlled by people like Mann and Phil Jones who study the issue like lawyers prosecuting a case, not like scientists proving a case. As a result, new scientists who are skeptical have little chance of getting grants, getting published, or getting tenure. Climate science has the same selection of the process as a priesthood, and that kind of selection process will produce the same errors as a religion. But right now, there is no alternative source providing funding. So all we hear about is a "consensus" when that consensus is really just a self-replicating group of believers.
- crux_ 17y ago
  > The problem is that the grant funded climate scientists all get more funding if they raise more alarm about global warming. This is often asserted, but is it true? Most alarmism that I have seen is coming from the media or activist organizations; the few times I've seen scientist alarm has been when recent measurements have been worse in some way than their models predict. Further, let's assume the funding relationship is true. Are all these scientists that dishonest? Wouldn't honest ones be reigning in their colleagues? Why haven't we seen this? > Even more concerning, the distribution of grants, the peer review process, and the IPCC process are controlled by people like Mann and Phil Jones who study the issue like lawyers prosecuting a case, not like scientists proving a case. They're expected to present and defend their claims in the court of public opinion and in the realm of politics; why are you shocked and appalled that they are doing so? N.b. they're rather incompetent at public relations, unfortunately... > Climate science has the same selection of the process as a priesthood, and that kind of selection process will produce the same errors as a religion. Sure. So does astrophysics, evolutionary biology, ... How is the situation different from any other deep speciality? > So all we hear about is a "consensus" when that consensus is really just a self-replicating group of believers. Or, a consensus opinion under attack by politically motivated non-scientists. What test could be applied, or evidence provided, to tell the difference?
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    How is the situation different from any other deep speciality? I've never heard of influential people in quantum mechanics trying to get a journal shut down because it published something critical of many worlds. Or, a consensus opinion under attack by politically motivated non-scientists. What test could be applied, or evidence provided, to tell the difference? We could, I dunno, hack their email to try and see if they try to suppress dissenting opinions? We could also try to examine the science to see if it truly is as solid as they argue. Well, actually we can't, since they deleted the data (oops, I mean lost it accidentally, they never acted on the emails in which they said they would delete it)...
    - crux_ 17y ago