Prove It
April 12th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
MIT professor Richard Lindzen has an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal on the climate debate. He asserts:
Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. . . And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift.
.
I will grant him several of these claims – including the mindless labeling of certain scientists as industry stooges or scientific hacks – but the rest of these very serious claims need to be backed up by more than just bald assertion.
As far as certain scientists who are disfavored in the grants process or in peer-reviewed publication because of their political views, I guess I’d say: prove it. I have no doubt that extra-scientific factors often play a role in the publication process and in proposal reviews. However, the nature of peer-reviewed publication and funding is so decentralized that if you can’t publish your work somewhere or get it supported, eventually, well, there must be a reason, and, hint, hint, it’s not an environmental conspiracy.
Make no mistake, funding for climate science is profoundly influenced by political considerations, just not in the way that Lindzen suggests. As Dan Sarewitz and I argued in 2003,
Our position, based on the experience of the past 13 years, is that although the current and proposed climate research agenda has little potential to meet the information needs of decision makers, it has a significant potential to reinforce a political situation characterized, above all, by continued lack of action. The situation persists not only because the current research-based approach supports those happy with the present political gridlock, but more uncomfortably, because the primary beneficiaries of this situation include scientists themselves.
Read that paper here in PDF.
April 13th, 2006 at 1:59 am
“Famous climate claims political forces are impeding his public pontifictions.
Result – public outcry, including full frontal media attack on TUS*. “Superclimatologist” soars above the villains with his primacy on all matters renewed. The blogs cry out as one “thank you Superclimatoligist”.
“Famous climatoligist writes hard hitting, but measured article on insitutionalised biases bending scientific research and outcomes”
Result – the blogs cry out “Show us you proof”
Oh how predictable.
I don’t know exactly what you actually believe Rgoer, but yeah, we are really going to see a grant review committee publically declare that they are granting/cutting funding because research is on a particular side of the AGW fence. Same with journal editors.
But anyone who has worked in any academic discipline at a reasonable senoir level has sat on such committees and knows how the cliques and personal biases work. It doesn’t has to be explicitly conspiratorial – I can really see Hansen sitting on a committee and arguing vociifously that Michaels should be allowed research funds. The fact is these bodies channel fund where they think the “interesting and useful” work is being done by “quality” academics.
You don’t think so? Gavin Schmidt makes some interesting off hand comments at Real Climate about the ease with which funds have come his way and the way of many of his “close colleagues”.
I think Richad Lindzen has earned the right to make such bold claims. The stylised evidence he presents, while anecdotal need to be addressed – one recent anecdote he didn’t mention was some extremely bizarre going on with a Hockey Stick related paper at a peer reviewed journal. That tale includes papers returning from the dead, editors being replaced and “lost” reviews.
Lindzen makes some serious claims. While you might say “shut up until you can show us the proof”, I say let’s investigate – properly.
Somehow, I can’t see the latter being a viable political option for anyone on this matter once the blogosphere turns hot on this. Compare that with the swift justice meted out to some minor press office functionary at NASA who made what in all likelihood was a pretty minor error of judgement (no folks, he wasn’t Blowfeldt or the White House mole).
I predict no one who genuinely wants to see the integrity of academic research preserved will dare stick their head over this parapet to at least support Lindzen in a bit of introspection.
April 13th, 2006 at 7:22 am
One does not have to think conspiracy to understand why AGW (as opposed to natural) climate change research is favored at present. There are two very strong forces that make it so.
One is that government exists to deal with problems. The bigger the problem, the more government is required to deal with it (according to those in the government). Notice that I did not say that government exists to solve problems. Often solving a problem would lead to a reduction in government, which is not the natural inclination of those who govern.)
Global warming is the perfect ‘problem’ for government bureaucracy. It provides power, control and prestige for those at the top, and wonderful trips around the world for those legions in the middle, who all get to wear ‘We Care’ buttons on their lapels.
The second force is simple: Follow the money! AGW supporters will often (almost incessantly) point out any connection a skeptic might have had to an energy company. Writing an article for TCS will earn you $500, and TCS is supported, in part, by an oil company. The conclusion is that the writer is now permanently tainted by accepting that $500, and all of their arguments and research can now be dismissed without consideration.
On the other hand, climatologists publishing AGW papers and doing AGW research have seen billions come their way. It would be almost impossible for any group to remain detached from this influence. In order to get funding, one must persuade the funders that ones research is important. The funders think global warming is important, so the tendency of the scientist will be to try and connect their research to man-made global warming.
There is even a tendency to add disclaimers in the conclusions of research that doesn’t support the AGW premise. The most famous of which was the report that the Antarctic Continent has been cooling for the last 30 years. The authors did not have to mention AGW at all, but felt compelled to argue that their research did not conflict with the theory of man-made global warming, even when it most obviously did.
Evidence that almost all of the recent climate change is natural would kill the golden goose for the climate change industry in both academia and government. I doubt there is a conscious effort on the part of AGW supporters to distort the science or conspire against dissenting voices, but the two forces mentioned above are powerful influences that shape all decisions made concerning climate change and what we should do about it.
The paradigm has been created and most operate inside that paradigm. The paradigm sets the standards for ‘playing the game’, and those who do not abide by the paradigm are judged more harshly. This is standard operating procedure for humans in almost all walks of life. We do it at work, at play, in our own homes, in our social, economic, ethnic and national groups!
Since science is all about reality, the paradigm will eventually shift and draw closer and closer to reality, but it will not shift easily. Those who present evidence that the paradigm is inaccurate, will always be attacked and disparaged, often in a personal and illogical ways. Their arguments will not be refuted with reason, but will often be twisted, mischaracterized or simply dismissed as unworthy of consideration.
On the other hand, the strongest supporters and/or creators of the paradigm will be unduly praised, even when their work is shown to be wanting.
Where is the evidence for all of these claims? It is everywhere. For starters, just read any discussion here on Prometheus. Then look at the world around you. If you are really courageous, look in the mirror.
April 13th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
I picture the strawman Jim (WMI = 2.275)** likes to swat is weighted on the bottom, such that it pops back up after a thorough, if prolix, bopping on its big red nose.
That way, Jim can whack away with aplomb, Galileo-like, at those “paradigms” (not scare quotes) his comments so daringly address.
This particular bandwidth expense finds the poor strawman returning to upright sans floppy hat, with one coverall strap askew and the corncob pipe nothing but a stem…
Best,
D
__________
**Willful Misleader Index (WMI)
Scale: 1-10
1 = Ideologue who purposely selectively reads work that contains words that appeal to narrow worldview.
2.5 = Rube/dupe.
5 = Innocent, new to issue, seeking information.
7.5 = Wordsmith, ex-journo., spreading the gospel, not paid.
10 = Shill, paid mendacicizer, employee of PR/fossil energy firm.
_______________
April 13th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Dano,
You have been so nice the past month or so, I could hardly believe it was you. You were even making sense. Your creator must have been proud of his reconstructive surgery.
Now the old you is back! What does all of that nonsense about strawmen mean and how does it relate to Jim Clarke’s post? Also does that scale of yours apply to both sides of an argument or just the side that you do not like.
New Dano… please come back.
TT
April 13th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
“What does all of that nonsense about strawmen mean and how does it relate to Jim Clarke’s post?”
It relates to just about all of Jim’s argument, and I placed it in its proper context.
“Also does that scale of yours apply to both sides of an argument or just the side that you do not like.”
Neither ’side’ – it applies to willful misleaders.
Best,
D
April 16th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Roger,
In light of your stated positions in recent blogs on:
a) the inappropriateness of James Hansen having to answer to anyone in his desire make public pronouncements and
b} some scientists need to provide proof of any publics assertions they make;
I was wondering if you had any thoughts you could share on James Hansen’s presence on a platform that accused Federick Seitz of corruption in his past academic career?
April 16th, 2006 at 8:53 am
Paul- I don’t have any informed thoughts on this event. Thanks.
April 16th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Dano,
Thank you for responding to my post.
Initially, my interest was simply in the hard science of global warming, but as the science began to move in ways that seemed irrational to me, I began to ask, ‘why is this happening?’ That lead me down a path I never expected, into the study of human behavior.
When I address something as subtle and omnipresent as human psychology in science and science funding, it is difficult to provide specific examples that capture the entire scope of the concept. Your posts, however, capture large chunks of it.
For example, I wrote:
“Those who present evidence that the paradigm is inaccurate, will always be attacked and disparaged, often in personal and illogical ways. Their arguments will not be refuted with reason, but will often be twisted, mischaracterized or simply dismissed as unworthy of consideration.”
Your follow-up post was a wonderful example of my point! If I was writing both sides of the argument, I doubt I could have made myself look any better.
April 17th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Golly, Jim. I proved your theory for you and therefore you have shown AGW doesn’t exist.
Truth travels mysterious paths, don’t it? Glad to help show the pshaw-ness of it all.
And thus, you have, Galileo-like, today, brought down an entire discipline. Your mom must be very proud.
Best,
D
April 18th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Roger,
Thought not.
So maybe a break on the “prove it” stuff?