Why do scientists support the GW theory even when they lose research grants by doing so?

Question

The total pool of research grants is small and scientists compete for funding. Fewer than half of all grant proposals are funded. Scientists doing research that is unrelated to GW lose research grants by writing reviews favorable to GW research. The vast majority of scientists do not work on GW and see their research grant prospects diminished as a result. Why then is there an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that GW is real and mostly caused by man? The stakes for a scientist seeking a research grant are typically in the range of $10 - 1000 K. The stakes for the average citizen adapting to GW are about $0.1K. An average PhD scientist has an IQ two standard deviations above average. Are scientists stupid to support the theory of AGW or is their support a measure of INTEGRITY.

Answer 1

well, first of all, it is necessary to take into consideration that science is VERY "politazed" so to say (or in more popular term - biased).

both within (rivalry for being canonic or mainstream) and outside (how its results are used by governments and those who hold real power) - because it is largely for sale.

in fact I observe with sadness that even contemporary medicine is also quite political. they [doctors of fda] tell people what is first of all more PROFITABLE to themselves (big corporations).

and in regard to GW - it is quite related to the ongoing struggle for fossil fuels.

why some scientists still support it - because perhaps some of them DO care about the world and people.

I've been attending 2 UNEP conferences and heard many delegates from all over Asia-Pacific region. especially small island countries. they show REAL pics  about the impact of sea level rising. these countries practically have NO industry and therefore do NOT contribute to Greenhouse Gases - yet they are those who already suffer the most.

so, whatever anti-GW activists say - there ARE worrisome facts.

let's see what will be the outcome of the current UNFCCC meeting in Bangkok will be (it started on 31st March). so far RICH countries, the biggest polluters, by hook or crook has been trying to avoid dong anything to reduce their exhaust fumes.

Answer 2

I think it's amazing how the "follow the money" line gets put on the scientists. Geez, science is not perfect but you won't find an institution in the history of human achievement with more integrity than science. It has a built in B.S. detector, and so far the theory of AGW has survived the maelstrom intact and stronger than when it started.

What critics fail to see, which is obvious, is that disproving global warming would lead to much greater acclaim than finding data to support it. Apparently none of the skeptics can gather much momentum in convincing their colleagues that AGW is false. You would think that if scientists really didn't believe in AGW and were just doing research for money they would be smart enough to go against the grain and disprove the theory for their own gain. The whole idea of this is utterly ridiculous on it's face.

If anyone wants to follow the money, all they have to do is ask the question "who has most to lose from AGW being true?" The answer is - large corporations and right wing ideologues.

Answer 3

I'm glad you said this.  The grants I've seen barely cover a part-time research assistant and a little equipment to but in a room obtained by begging.

Answer 4

You make it sound as if there's a big grab bag of cash waiting for the best essay.  There's not.  Those who hold the purse strings determine which grants get funded.  Since most of this grant money concerning AGW comes from Big Brother, which side of the argument is going to get grant approval??  Why risk your career with an un-PC opinion if there's no money in it?

"The stakes for the average citizen adapting to GW are about $0.1K."

GW, very true.  AGW...you'd have to place very little value on your liberty, prosperity, and nation my friend to come to that figure.

Answer 5

well spotted!

dont forget other pressures;

Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007031910...

Testimony of

James E. Hansen

to

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

United States House of Representatives

19 March 2007

Answer 6

I would like to see the proof that Global Warming research has the effect of reducing the viability of receiving a grant.  I have seen reports that show exactly the opposite.

Answer 7

It's quite simple - the vast majority of scientists accept the AGW theory because the vast majority of scientific evidence supports the theory.  As you know, scientists base their conclusions on scientific data.

The AGW denial movement would love it if they could pin the consensus on a vast conspiracy of scientists seeking to get more grant money, but that's simply a ridiculous conspiracy theory with no basis in reality.

Answer 8

Why would they support AGW even when they lose grants. Because it lets them keep their jobs! It is difficult to get grants when if your only study is AGW...However, it is a lot easier than getting a grant if you disagree with AGW. Some "open minded" scientists have suggested other scientists be fired if they go against global warming and some scientists have even received death threats for not advocating AGW. So lets see...support AGW and keep your job and get accolades or denounce AGW, lose your job, and get death threats? I'm a bureaucrat so I know I'd say keep my job. I think many scientists fall into the same category, especially the ones working at the IPCC. Which would you chose…what if someone says, "tell us you believe in little pink elephants or lose your job" Would you lose your job and let your family starve or would you say you believe in little pink elephants? Don’t worry, with time you actually do believe in the little pink elephants.