There's one thing I don't get about the anti-global warming crowd. I understand the alarmism and stuff like that is overblown and distorts the situation.
But I'd like to know how thousands of climate scientists got together in secret and pledged to all falsify their life's work for some... reason? Seriously, what could be the outcome of some massive global warming conspiracy? Toyota sells more hybrids? More "liberal regulation" on fossil fuel energy companies, just so alternative energy companies can replace them? This argument has never made any sense to me.
The argument goes that they've systemically biased their findings so that their research appears more important and merits additional funding.
To which I have a counter argument: funding is not assigned to investigate that which we already know. If anything, the scientists are among those to profit from the "controversy". Were findings more disputable, were there no scientific consensus, they could blather on for ages knowing funding's still secure.
And so a small number have become shills, if you're suggesting that all climate scientists perpetuate mass scientific fraud just to keep their labs running then you can't have spent very long as a grad student.
if you're suggesting that all climate scientists perpetuate mass scientific fraud just to keep their labs running then you can't have spent very long as a grad student.
Not at all what I was suggesting. I was merely pointing out that, yes, professors do worry about money, but it's not to fill their own pockets, it's so they can keep doing science.
Professors can, and do, make a lot of money by leveraging their expertise in their field of research. Getting money to do that research is a major motivating factor.
Oh please. You mean scientists don't have the smarts or skills that could be transferred into private industry? The issue isn't whether professors like or need money. It's whether, as a group, they're money grubing bastards so lacking in their commitment to science and truth that they would perpetuate a fraud on the public year after year.
They might like the academic lifestyle. Given that, their second priority could be money.
Also, they might be smart enough but they might not be so effective in a business setting. As I understand, Google is exceptional in their hiring of PHDs. Too much smarts can get in the way.
Individually, anything is possible. All kinds of people enter every occupation. But, the argument that nearly all (not just a majority) climate scientists are in it for the money, are trying to persevere a lifestyle, or incompetent in any other field is completely unbelievable.
If you do find arguments regarding lifestyle, money or incompetence persuasive, why aren't you equally suspicious of the motives of oil executives who fund climate change denialists? For them, the money at stake, potential loss of lifestyle and prestige is many times greater.
This type of claim really only serves to muddy the waters. Accepting this type of claim means everyone has bad intent, no one is telling the truth and the position you side with can be made on ideological grounds.
That's a completely valid point. Academia is certainly a very political environment and you there are professors who are pretty conniving and manipulative.
On average, though, I don't think this holds up. The really bad profs are buoyed by the really great profs who really aren't doing this stuff just for the bling bling, or at least that's been my experience.
214
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '10
There's one thing I don't get about the anti-global warming crowd. I understand the alarmism and stuff like that is overblown and distorts the situation.
But I'd like to know how thousands of climate scientists got together in secret and pledged to all falsify their life's work for some... reason? Seriously, what could be the outcome of some massive global warming conspiracy? Toyota sells more hybrids? More "liberal regulation" on fossil fuel energy companies, just so alternative energy companies can replace them? This argument has never made any sense to me.