Don't scientists that support GW have as much of a vested intrest in it being real as the skeptic scientist...

Question

has in it being untrue?

If GW was dissproved thier funding would be pulled PDQ

Answer 1

No, in theory a scientist could make as decent a living researching factors that would tear apart the theory.  Science embraces skeptics.  Science needs skeptics.  The IPCC consensus process included skeptics.  

However, in practice since it would be huge if someone could pull that off and tell the world the fantastic news, they'd be quite a celebrity and could go on talk shows, sell books, give speeches for a fee and so forth.  

Unfortunately there is a well documented industry campaign that sends millions of dollars to skeptical scientists and organizations:

Exxposing ExxonMobil's Agenda: Manipulating Politics and the Public

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/dailyf...

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) offered of a $10,000 “honoraria” to any scientist willing to go on record against the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).   The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

Here's how the questionable information produced is distributed to you:

At Fox News, a Pundit for Hire

http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?...

"Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Mill...

Many of the people involved have made their living for the last decade or more off of denying science, such as that smoking causes cancer or that global warming is caused by man.  Clearly they have found it far more lucrative to be professional propagandists rather than scientists.

Answer 2

If there was less controversy and global warming was universally accepted as to all intents and purposes fact (as all major scientific organisations would like) there would be no pressure for the heavy present investment in pure science on global warming (ie it is the sceptics who are sustaining an arguably excessive level of pure science) We could then move to much needed extra research in applied science to address the problem.

Answer 3

Good point.

Dana .... you are living in a dream world. And I wish you were right, but the history of science prove you wrong.

Answer 4

No, that's not how science works.

Scientists gather data, analyze it, and draw conclusions from it.  Their grant funding is based on the quality of their research proposals.  It's not based on their overall conclusions about global warming.

Even if global warming did somehow turn out not to be caused by humans, we would still have a vested interest in knowing what's happening with our planet's climate.  Climate scientists were doing research long before global warming became a well-known issue.

The only thing real scientists have a vested interest in is doing good scientific research and forming sound scientific opinions.

Answer 5

Sure, absolutely. But still, GW is either true or it isn't -- vested interests don't change that fact.

Answer 6

No because if it's not true, that means something is drastically wrong with our understanding of physics and geophysics.  Those two topics are of such high strategic relevance that if CO2 were not affecting climate, research funding in the area would increase rather than decrease to figure out where the errors lie.  

Scientists will always find something to do and the good ones don't go into basic research in geophysics and physics to get rich anyway.

Answer 7

I think both groups of scientist try to be objective (i.e. open to the opposite view being correct).  Scientist are supposd to be objective.  The null hypothesis is always the negative (i.e. no change is occurring).  This was the norm in the 1980s,  Then, enough evidence was available to form a reliable theory. The theory allows us to make predictions.  Portions of the theory have been riggorously tested, portions have not.  Climate change was elevated to the theory level because some of the test rejected the negative hypothesis (change is not occuring).  Using the theory, scientist have developed the means to make predictions about events that can be expected to occur given our activities.  Many appear to be happening.  I don't think any scientist rejects the entire theory of climate change - too much evidence is affirming it.  I think they are skeptical about some of the parts of the theory that have not been rigorously tested.  This is good because it can lead to improvements in the theory and improved predictions.

Politicians and non-scientist want to try to say if any part of the theory is not perfect, it is all wrong.  They take positions based on a very limited understanding of what goes into making the theories and suggest things like "it is natural - a pattern only" for some reason thinking this has not already been considered and factored into the predictions (it has).  They suggest that the sun is getting hotter and is the sole source of the change - again changes in incoming solar radiation has already been factored in.   In reality all of these factors contribute to GW, but the only part people can control is the carbon we pull from the ground and put in the air and the changes in the landscape that change the carbon balance.  It turns out that human activity seems to be the biggest part of the increased rate of change (considering natural variation and increases in solar intensity).  

The funding being pulled is not really a concern for scientist. They will go on working.  It would just be switched to some other question that needs an answer.

The problem of GW is so big, there is no easy solution.  It is easier to disbelieve than to figure out ways to reduce the potential effects.  It is interesting that all the problems pollution causes and talk of reducing of dependency on foreign oil, that modest steps that reduce the impact of pollution are not acceptable.  There are conspiracy theories and all science is labeled as wrong to avoid taking action.  Some think the US EPA, NAS, NASA, DOE of a neo-conservative government are working together to mislead the American people.  Some think a collection of very good scientist at the IPCC are making this up to scare up more money.  A better question may be does this point of view make any sense?  Could there really be something to the climate change problem since  almost all of the scientific community seems to have concerns and are going public with this.  Who has the most to gain by confusing the issue?  It is not the scientists - they would have just turned to another problem if this weren't a major concern that needs action.  The involvement of scientist in the policy debate and the pushing for a political solution should scare the h**l out of us.