An argument often heard in the fruitlooposphere* is that the scientific community has financial incentive to push the consensus view that humans are responsible for climate change. The idea is that toeing the consensus line translates into more research funding.
There is, of course, never any evidence presented with this argument. Rather, it is presented as "common sense": "Well, of course they're just trying to get more funding ..."
So let's apply a little common sense and see how the argument fares.
First, consider that the scientific community has been saying for several years that our understanding of the climate system is quite good. Not perfect, mind you, but good enough that many scientists feel we should be taking action now to reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions. Based on the strength of this conclusion, many politicians have started saying "the science is settled."
Does that sound like a recipe for getting lots of research funding? Saying that we have a pretty good understanding of the climate system?
In fact, it should be obvious that the scientific community would be better off saying we're not sure that climate change is caused by humans: "It might be human-induced, but it might not be. What we really need is more money for models, satellites, and analysis." I can imagine a bipartisan groundswell of support for massive funding of climate science. That's the way to maximize funding. You don't say that the science is settled. You say it's unsettled.
And what would happen if the scientific community said definitively that humans were not to blame? I don't think funding would go down much, for the following reason. The climate is still warming, and if it is not human, then what is it? Obviously, we need to do a lot of research to figure out what is driving the climate, and how the climate will evolve over the next century. Enormous amounts of research on geoengineering and adaptation will be necessary, regardless of whether the cause is human.
So, it doesn't appear that the scientific community has done itself any favors by concluding that humans are responsible for climate change.
It should be clear that, like most skeptical arguments, this one doesn't stand up to an application of common sense.
*The term "fruitlooposphere" was shamelessly stolen from David.
What to make of the new climate poll
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
LegumeSam Posted 4:28 am
10 Jan 2008
I challenged the deniers to prove motive here some time back; no takers.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 5:43 am
10 Jan 2008
People rarely accuse others of things that they do not know themselves to be capable of. This is no more or less true on the playground than it is in business or the halls of congress. The kid who is most likely to accuse you of being a bedwetter is the safest bet on the playground for a kid who sleeps on rubber sheets.
And beyond the playground, it's why Larry Craig is opposed to same-sex couples, why lawyers negotiate contracts as if they other side is out to screw them and why the biggest proponents of the "scientists are only in it for the money" argument tend to be those who have the most $ invested in the status quo.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 6:02 am
10 Jan 2008
Permalink
Werdna Posted 6:32 am
10 Jan 2008
So, it is not that scientists have a vested interest in making money (although that is a by-product of respect), but that they want to remain within the scientific community that they are a part of. Try reading Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
9 times out of 10, when a scientist bucks the mainstream trend the scientist is wrong and the mainstream trend is correct. But, science will not progress unless we listen for that 1 out of 10 who are making valid points.
What is my point here? Well, that mainstream scientists are not out for the money, but they are out to save their reputations. This is a good thing. If they want to say something contrary, they should be damn sure that they are correct about it.
I am in no way endorsing the skeptical notion that AGW is a fallacy, but I am concerned that if scientists completely buy into a "consensus" then they will be less likely to speak out if their opinion differs from the mainstream in any way. Unfortunately, this notion is too subtle to come across in the media, so saying "consensus" is the easiest way to go.
Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.livableregion.ca
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 6:47 am
10 Jan 2008
Rather, the greatest scientists are those who advance the frontier of knowledge with bold new ideas.
Thus, the incentive in science is for areas of uncertainty to be attacked with relentless fury. In fact, there's lots of debate going on right now on certain issues, like hurricanes and how AGW will affect them.
If there were legitimate questions about the conclusions of the IPCC, then you can bet there would be debate about it in the scientific community. The lack of much debate therefore speaks volumes.
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 6:55 am
10 Jan 2008
It's just that they agree on the basic points. CO2, warming, effects. Dig a little deeper and a whole bunch of fighting is uncovered. It's fascinating and a great example of how science operates. Which is why it is such a shame that the attention is going to the pr debate between science and deniers.
There is so much interesting debate going on within climate science.
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 7:26 am
10 Jan 2008
When environmental regulations were first being discussed companies that would be regulated started public relations efforts to sway the political outcome. This PR was less than honest. Enviros won big PR points by connecting this dishonesty with the financial motivations, ie big greedy corporations poisoning the air and water.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 7:28 am
10 Jan 2008
This is unfortunately true. I read about a scientist (I forget the name) who quit the IPCC because he thought that they were critically underestimating the role of urban heat island and other land-use factors in global warming. He was avowedly NOT denying global warming, nor even arguing that anthropogenic causes were at the root. He just disagreed about the relative weighting of the causes. But the media reported him as a "skeptic".
It's good to hear that there is still a lively debate going on about the details of climate science. The lack of such debate would be a bad sign. However, I suspect that many scientists may be restrained from expressing dissent, not out of fear of censure by their peers, but out of fear that they will be mis-represented by the media and their reputations thus damaged.
Permalink
sdonner Posted 9:17 am
10 Jan 2008
Permalink
Werdna Posted 9:24 am
10 Jan 2008
This is documented in a very interesting book that I happen to be reading right now---Storm World.
http://www.harcourtbooks.com/StormWorld/
As always, nuances of scientific debate are always lost to the media.
Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.livableregion.ca
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:39 pm
10 Jan 2008
"Global Warming" in its totality is such a joke, that it probably makes more money as entertainment than science. Certainly the $130 million Al Gore earned last year attests to this.
(1) There is not one scientific paper that absolutely says that CO2 (of any kind, man made or tree made) is responsible for increased temperatures.
(2) Leading members of the IPCC have published papers warning against rushing to consensus!
(3) The rates of CO2 production and temperature increases are not correlated. Grist announced the last few years had dramatically higher rates of CO2 -- yet, the temperature dropped in 2007!
(4) Hurricanes are nonexistent this year!
(5) Most people are enjoying their current weather more than at any time in human history.
My Log
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 2:31 pm
10 Jan 2008
The Deniers. These folks say whatever you say it smut. Their ideas are better (not to be confused with extreme Climate Change skeptics)
The Fixers. These folks are FG*, usually very amicable, and always have a better solution although they are prone to one-upsmanship
The Supporters. A group to be feared. Many evil people will join your cause to make a buck.
Fooking Genius
More seriously, the fact remains that public expenditures on Climate Change studies, academic and applied, have almost flat-lined. Ask a scientist if he or she is making much money these days in terms of contracts using public funding. It is ridiculous to suggest that these hard working folks have some financial interest, since recent Bush policies made sure they did not. /sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Werdna Posted 3:02 pm
10 Jan 2008
1. Technically correct, although practically meaningless. There is no such thing about being scientifically absolutely sure about something (absolute proof exists only in mathematics and religion*). All answers are tentative, but we can be pretty damn sure about some stuff. To find scientific papers that link CO2 and temperature, go here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/ and search for "carbon dioxide temperature"
Who? Landsea? He had some issues with actions that other scientists took, but he does not disagree with the basic concepts.
Climate is a complicated process. El Nino and La Nina can affect temperature in the short term, but will not change long term trends.
Technically correct, because this year is 10 days old, but 2007 had an above average number of storms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Atlantic_hurricane_seas ...
Really? Have you spoke to the drought afflicted in the South East and South West? Floods in the UK. Both were at unprecedented levels.
Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.livableregion.ca
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:52 am
11 Jan 2008
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Wang_etal.pdf
...we consider two cases: a 2% increase in the solar constant...and a doubling of CO2 abundance. Without cloud feedback in this model, both of these perturbations produce about the same change in global and annual mean surface temperature
In other words, Svensmark is right.
2.
Article Points out Risks of Premature Climate Change Consensus
http://www.watsoninstitute.org/news_detail.cfm?id=685
3.
Climate is a complicated process.
Tell that to Al Gore!
Why is it that the Cuckooforcocoapuffsosphere cuts itself decameters of slack whenever they are simply wrong, but never anyone else?!
4 & 5. Please. The insurance industry had a holiday this year because there were no hurrican disasters. IPCC predicts increasing bad weather. There was almost nil bad weather and tons of really good weather.
Floods -- yes, but you know what. Although there was one major flood here in Central West washington, back in 1992 you know what they were complaining about? Drought!
And here in Kent Valley, when the initial heavy rains and low snowfall hit, they were talking about levees breaking and whatnot. But now, we've still got relatively heavy rainfall and it's not flooding.
My own pet theory is that the Earth is becoming better with all the water at soaking it up (the difference between hard dry clay and wet fresh earth).
My Log
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:46 am
11 Jan 2008
The lovely warm weather you keep going on about -- neglecting the fact that numerous people are dying due to unusually strong storms, sudden changes in temperature, torrential down pours where water cannot be absorbed by the vegetation or frozen ground, snow where people are not prepared for such weather, et cetera -- might not be so wonderful when summer arrives.
Sure... plants like warm weather. But, I've already mentioned that a lot of plants we rely on or other organisms rely on actually need cool weather or even cold snowy weather for survival and/or reproduction. I've also mentioned that insects and other pests that harm important plants are moving north with the warm weather. A lot of fungal diseases are suppressed by cold winter weather; replace ice with cool wet weather and there are plants species that will die. There are also plants that cannot tolerate high heat. If global climate change converts the Midwest to California -- which you apparently think is a good thing -- California, Texas, and the rest of the south will not necessarily be a pleasant place to live.
I'd like to return to the insect issue for a moment. I've been reading E. O. Wilson's "The Creation". He has a nice chapter about fire ants. Apparently: the critters attack young birds; the ant nests make plowing, mowing, and harvesting difficult; they invade houses; they reduce the abundance and diversity of other insects, as well as other invertebrates and reptiles; and they are even powerful enough to alter ecosystems and displace or diminish mice and deer! God only knows -- assuming there is a God -- what else the fire ants are doing! What about all of the species that depend on the one's affected by the fire ants? The only thing keeping them from spreading across North America is our winter weather up here! And that is just one insect trying to expand its range but held back by sub-freezing temperatures.
Yes... change is natural. The Earth has been warm before... and cold before. But it has never happened so rapidly and at a time when plant and animal populations are already declining due to pollution, habitat loss, hunting, et cetera. This is a NEW sort of extinction combined with a NEW sort of "meteor impact". It is not nature conducting business as usual and the outcome is not necessarily going to include human beings. The biodiversity, large populations, genetic diversity, and broad expanses of habitat present just before earlier catastrophic events is just not available this time around.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:53 am
11 Jan 2008
You are certainly an optimist. But you might want to consider that your view of the land around you and how it might benefit from global warming does not necessarily appy to other places on Earth.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:04 am
11 Jan 2008
Just to blue-sky along those lines ("to blue-sky" being a verb that Charlie Rose seems to have invented), I was wondering if we might erect a concept called the "trixaren'tforrabbitsosphere," intended to refer to online speciesists and other bigots, and discovered this minor masterpiece of Web-based prophecy:
http://www.porq.com/Media/trix.htm
The anonymous author even has sympathy for Wile E. Coyote -- though it is perhaps unnecessary that that should involve the vindictive punishment of Roadrunner.
WiscIdea,
E.O. Wilson's chapter on fire ants, in his recent "The Creation," is one of the best pieces of writing on animals that I have ever read.
Very cute is that bit on how in Mobile, Alabama, his hometown, where fire ants were first accidentally introduced, they are referred to as "far aints," meaning they are from far away, and they ain't goin' back.
You are absolutely right that suggestions that global warming is a good thing for human happiness and the well-being of living creatures are shallow and short-sighted.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
trock Posted 8:05 am
11 Jan 2008
Maybe there is something about these global warming arguments that you are missing.
We are not now in the damaging global warming climate and weather periods. That happens, by many scientists estimates, when we are at greater than 450 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere. Read that again if you need to.
What is going to happen is if we don't change how we use and make energy, we will blow right past the 450 ppm CO2 numbers and go to 500, 600, 700 and 800 ppm CO2 in our atmosphere and the other greenhouse gases and then we will be in much warmer and catastrophic climate and weather patterns.
What we are in now is just a little warming and we are just getting a few of the indications and trends of what the future weather and climate will be in the future, not what the weather and climate will be. It will be much, much warmer.
Once we have put the CO2 in the atmosphere, we can't get it out easily. The only real hope we have is to not put it in the atmosphere in the first place.
Here is a website that has listed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm
1998 was the warmest year worldwide, much of that was because of some weather patterns from El Nino that lead to warmer weather. But as we keep putting in more CO2 into the atmosphere and other greenhouse gases, as they accumulate, along with other forcings such as more water vapor because of the warmer atmosphere, the overall temperatures keep rising and even a world weather pattern that would normally bring cooler temperatures will be warmer than the warmest temperatures that we have now. We will be in a different climate.
Even though 1998 has 17 ppm less than 2007, it is not enough CO2 to overcome a warm weather year, but when the CO2 is going to be 100, 200 and 300 ppm greater than now, the climate will be warmer with all the droughts and changes in the earth that that means. then a cool weather year will still be much warmer than a warm weather year is now.
We are not working for the climate we have now to be cooler, we are working for the climate of the future to not be greater than 3.6 degrees F higher than today.
The weather from year to year varies in cloud cover and weather patterns, but we are continuing to add to the insulating and greenhouse gases that will allow our world temperature to keep increasing.
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 7:02 am
12 Jan 2008
However, I would propose a moratorium on funding of AGW research, how would you like that? If the case is closed, the science settled and no motive thus exists for anyone to publish, hold press conference, or testify in legislative bodies about AGW for any funding, I for one would welcome it. Do you honestly and logically think that will happen? If what you say is true, it should. But if you were to Google just a few key words about AGW funding money, you will see the AGW gravytrain is chugging along at full speed, AGU showed it in spades. Perhaps you should ask Pew, UCS, MoveOn, NRDC, Friends of the Earth, GreenPeace, and dozens of other left wing think tanks and lobbying/pressure groups where their money is going too. Follow the money Doc.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 7:40 am
12 Jan 2008
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 1:15 am
13 Jan 2008
If humans are not to be blamed for all manner of disasters visited on the earth, research into AGW and climate and the resulting "policy" actions to fix it(read government control, taxes, dictated personal lifestytle choices, etc.) would be moot. How can you logically think that would draw buckets of cash to climate research? Could it be your political views??? Yes, indeed.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 1:48 am
13 Jan 2008
Please provide evidence of funding bias other than a quote from Mencken. If you have no evidence, then I guess this argument joins your other arguments in the dustbin.
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 4:16 am
13 Jan 2008
These groups are not funding research.
The scientific facts support environmentalist's positions, but that doesn't mean they are the ones doing the research.
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 6:54 am
13 Jan 2008
And Dr. Dessler, can you prove to me that the amount of funding for pro-AGW research is less than the anti-AGW research and that the political point of view of researchers has no bearing on grants? I think if you look into it, as the Marshall group has, you will find the vast majority of climate research funds go to those scientists who have drunk the TAMU type Kool-Aid and/or compromised their values and scientific integrity for cash. Book deals too. If you can't then your ideas end up in a place much more dark and nasty than a dustbin.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 4:46 am
14 Jan 2008
Climate change is scary whether it's being caused by humans or not. Thus, research funding would at least stay at the same level --- or more likely dramatically increase --- if scientists said that we didn't know what was causing the warming. Of course, I can't prove that, but you can't prove otherwise.
So unless you can provide some proof for your point, we can safely conclude that the argument that "climate change is driven by funding" is bogus.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:19 am
14 Jan 2008
And it still didn't skew the results in favor of the deniers.
"Drinking the kool aid" is a limboob phrase, 'nuff said.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 11:48 am
14 Jan 2008
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 12:16 pm
14 Jan 2008
Your strength seems to be repeating yourself. Sadly, I don't think that's convincing anyone. My argument, plainly made up above, remains unscathed.
If you have any evidence to contradict it, please present it.
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 11:14 pm
14 Jan 2008
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 10:59 am
05 Feb 2008
We generally expect the person making the outrageous claim to back it up. Otherwise, I could make some outrageous claim about you, and then expect you to refute it ... this is not how intelligent debate operates.
If you have evidence that scientists are biased, let's see it. In the absence of any evidence, or even common sense, the arguments heads where so many other skeptical arguments go: the dustbin.
Permalink