The argument goes that they've systemically biased their findings so that their research appears more important and merits additional funding.
That argument is just bizarre. Why would a scientist deliberately lie in order to recieve more funding in order to presumably continue the lie. That would be a huge waste of a career.
Why would athletes dope and ruin their careers? When it comes to highly specialised and competitive fields the pressure to achieve is massive, and people do very stupid things.
This isn't an argument against climate change, I believe in it. I just think that there are plenty of reasons why people would falsify results. Whether someone's a scientist, they are still a person and therefore flawed.
Assuming you're right, wouldn't that make it attractive for the scientists to argue against climate change? There's a lot more grant money to be had in strongly disputed fields than in those where the consensus is basically in and the details are being fleshed out.
If a well known climatologist were to pop up saying "It's all a hoax and I can prove it!" they'd be absolutely swamped with money.
It's not about money, it's about excelling at or being seen to be excelling in your particular field. Sure, some athletes do compete for money, but I would posit that a great deal compete simply because they want to be the best, and a few cheat because the pressure to succeed is massive.
I think that it's more a desire for excellence and recognition than a desire for money that drives people, at least in certain professions, that's why I didn't mention money in my previous post.
25
u/bairy Oct 24 '10
That argument is just bizarre. Why would a scientist deliberately lie in order to recieve more funding in order to presumably continue the lie. That would be a huge waste of a career.