Scientists and alarmism

The ‘in it for the money’ theory of climate science doesn’t pan out 9

We have all heard the following argument: in order to get funding for research, the scientific community is forced to produce alarmist predictions of climate change.

There's a lot wrong with this argument. But it recently occurred to me that it doesn't even make sense. In the latest IPCC reports, what the scientific community said is that our understanding of climate change is quite good (although not "settled"). This does nothing to build up research funding.

The scientific community could generate much higher levels of funding if scientists argued that our understanding of climate change was poor, and that the governments of the world should be funding lots and lots of research.

So why don't scientists play up uncertainty in order to increase funding? Because science does not work that way. While you and I might both increase our funding by, say, 20 percent if we work together and pretend that there is great uncertainty in the science of climate, I could increase my funding by 100 percent if I show that your work is crap and I take all your funding.

In other words, competing interests in science are so strong that it essentially precludes the kind of large-scale conspiracy advocated in this skeptical argument.

Andrew Dessler is an associate professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University; his research focuses on the physics of climate change, climate feedbacks in particular.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Stentor Posted 8:05 am
    29 May 2007

    More clever than you thinkLet me say first that I don't subscribe to the skeptical argument at issue here. However, if I were a climate scientist looking to push the conclusion that would get me the most funding, I think there's a good case to be made for emphasizing the certainty of the science so far, given the current political climate. If I emphasize the uncertainty, then the Bush-Howard crowd will say "oh, so it's probably not happening, so we'll cut your funding." But if I emphasize the certainty, they'll say "crap, we can't keep doing nothing -- let's stall by demanding more research anyway."
    Also, I don't think the IPCC report is as uncongenial to additional research as you suggest -- our understanding of the basic science is good, but there's still lots of work to be done on clarifying regional and local impacts, and developing adaptive strategies, none of which would be happening without a degree of certainty at the more basic level.

    Permalink

  2. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 8:29 am
    29 May 2007

    ...Without Even Trying...

    Boy, you guys don't know much about business (or do you, since you seem to sell a lot of banner ads).
    Anyway, the way to get the sale is to say you're "almost done" and if only you could have a few "billion dollars more" you'd have a really crackerjack model that could save humanity.
    If you say the models are bad, they'd say why give a  bunch of pikers money.   If you say the models are perfect, they say, well, why pay for something that's already great?
    See, by telling them they're "almost" ready, they can tease funding out of the budget, and at the same time, cut and run when the models are shown to be bunk.



    John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"


    You Read It Here First

    Permalink

  3. Michael Tobis's avatar

    Michael Tobis Posted 8:54 am
    29 May 2007

    It isn't working eitherThis calumny is the reason my blog is called what it is called. You can see some discussion of the actual trend in climate funding



    there    .

    mt

    Permalink

  4. wiscidea Posted 9:13 am
    29 May 2007

    Boy, Bailo don't know much about science.A scientist who is not able to meet expectations will not be funded during the next grant cycle. There are more scientists than money to support them. It is very competitive.
    If someone drags his or her feet and claims they are "almost done" year after year, the granting agencies will stop feeding them and their career will be over.
    Now, business on the other hand is probably happy trying to convince the government that we don't have enough information to start reacting to global warming. They benefit in two ways. First, they don't have to clean up their act. Second, they can sell more and more satellites and computing power to Federal agenencies. As long as the jury is still out, business profits.
    Scientists would probably like to move on from trying to convince the last one or two skeptics that we are about to experience a tsunami of global climate change sweeping around our planet, and actually work on solving the problem or finding ways to adapt to it.

    Forward!

    Permalink

  5. Andrew Dessler Posted 12:45 pm
    29 May 2007

    I suppose they're rightBased on the first two comments, I suppose I have to conclude that no matter what the IPCC says ("things are uncertain," "things are certain," "things are almost certain"), people will accuse it of being alarmist.  Of course, that's nonsense since the IPCC is the most reliable summary of what we know and how confidently we know it.  See here for an explanation of why you should believe it.

    Permalink

  6. tico89 Posted 1:51 pm
    29 May 2007

    So you can be both alarmist and uncertain?Scientists are trying to be uncertain to get more money, but at the same time trying to alarm people into giving them more funding? Surely it's got to be one or the other.
    It's sad that even scientists have lost their credibility, and become more human in the public eye. More people seem to believe politicians. And that's alarming.

    If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

    Permalink

  7. GreyFlcn Posted 3:03 pm
    29 May 2007

    Do we have a better word thanDo we have a better word than "Alarmist" ?
    Certainly thats taking the skeptic's lingo and using it on ourselves.
    There's gotta be something better than that.

    Permalink

  8. JohnCaley Posted 8:04 pm
    29 May 2007

    I have little Faith>> See here for an explanation of why you should believe it.  >>
    well clouds seem to be in everyone's eyes, and inconsistent ocean warming, and galloping drought...

    just for starters
    and now the talk is of a snowball Earth.... global warming is being trashed by many qualified and sound scientists.
    Climate, projected on "proxy" data, and perceived trends, all concocted to fit current observations via computer programs... err programmers !!
    well you have great faith, time will sort it out, but will humanity still be here if all the alchemy is incorrect... or worse still totally fabricated.
    An someone who thinks money will save them is standing behind all the ill informed.

    Permalink

  9. MarkUK Posted 10:24 pm
    29 May 2007

    Nah.There is a big difference between science and business. I escaped from the lab and am now in business. In business you get paid (well I do anyway) to sort a problem. Science is much less defined in an endpoint. When you apply for a grant you will have a defined project but that in itself is usually not going to be the end of all research in that field!
    People who claim that scientists are really in it together to make money don't know what they are talking about.
    First of all, look at the cars and clothing of most scientists... If it was money they were after they would be working for Exxon... I know why I left science and went into business. You need true passion for science to stick with it.
    Secondly, if you go to any science conference the amount of sniping and arguing taking place... Agreement is rarely the word that springs to mind.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement