Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
The title says it all but the article is here.
I've got to wonder how often this sort of thing happens but never makes it into news.
There aren't words to describe how disgusting this is.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
The atheist ethicist...
...has a great write up on why this pisses me off so badly.
Linkage
Cash, you say? Where do I
Cash, you say? Where do I sign up?
Good for science
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. The scientific method involves critical evaluation of everyone's claims. It doesn't matter who funds the study.
Actually, imagine that several scientists take the job and do their best to criticize the report. They may
1. Fail to find anything and so bolster the case made by the report.
2. Give falacious arguments because they are paid to do so. In the end, this has the same effect as the last item. Their arguments will presumably be readily refuted. If not, then something is wrong with the case made by the report.
3. Find a real issue with the report and thus bring it to the attention of the research community for further study.
What's wrong with any of those outcomes, unless one has a religious committment to the idea that climate-change is human-caused?
Sadly, no.
Had the scientists been offered $10k to find "something meaningful that was missing from the study," I might be able to agree with you.
But, to offer financial gain to produce a paper that only supports a specific finding promotes dishonesty, ignorance, and an absolute contempt for finding truth. Which, in my opinion, is the absolute center of immorality.
Which is also where I hold the AEI.
agree
I couldn't agree with you more and pointing that out was the purpose of this post.
Not only that
I'd also like to address this point, " It doesn't matter who funds the study."
I (of course) can't find the exact article that I recall reading...but this article illustrates my point just as well. The point is that often there is a bias in the findings depending on who funds the study. Bad studies will eventually get canned by the peer review process, but until then...
Funding is the problem
The mainstream media takes the AEI seriously. If its so-called scientists make a dishonest claim that the report is flawed, it will be treated seriously, in a he-said-she-said way.
And the result is delay.
I don't have any problems with legitimate scientific investigation to challenge conventional wisdom. But these sorts of industry-funded studies aren't used to investigate, they're just chaff designed to delay action to correct the problem for as long as possible, allowing the people who make money from the source of the problem to maximize profits. The same exact thing happened with tobacco.
Jim Downey
"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
just like Clay Institute,
just like Clay Institute, offering bribe money in order to get mathematicians to work
Well, Something's Disgusting Here
I'd argue that a media outfit that blatantly misrepresents the contents of the letter the AEI put out qualifies as pretty disgusting. The AEI asked scholars to write papers "to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change." There's a big difference between asking for reports that debunk the IPCC and those that seek to highlight strengths and weaknesses, wouldn't you say?
It's pure spin
The AEI said,
In other words, the AEI's hoping to pay researchers grants to write politicized hit pieces.
Spin?
They're looking for an author who can, in plain English, discussion which models are successful and which haven't worked. That seems like a pretty sensible approach to any problem to me.
Not exactly
They're looking for someone to critique the report. They don't have the scientific know-how to have an intelligent opinion about the report. Now, a rational person in that situation would go with expert opinion by default; there are no credible scientists who think global warming is not anthropogenic, and several who think the report was too mild. An irrational person, or a political hack, would look to bribe experts to offer a critique of mainstream scientific opinion.
Saying there are no credible
Saying there are no credible scientists who think global warming is not anthropogenic is simply not true. And yes I do think the letter from AEI has been grossly mis-characterized. If you're going to go this route then you have to question anything put out by anyone paid by environmental groups as being completely biased.
Revenant