On Feb 18, 6:04 am, Prometheus wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:32:14 +0000 (UTC),

(Larry) wrote:
Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for affirming or denying global warming?

I don't know many scientists, so it's a wild-assed guess.

But could it have something to do with a scientist studying something
like global warming depends on government funds for grants to pursue
their research, and somebody has a politically motivated say on who
gets that money and who does not? Even without overt pressure, I
could imagine some unconcious skewing in the data to help ensure next
year's grants.

You would have a strong argument if climatologists
studied global warming. They do not. They study climate
and climate change. Global warming is a conclusion
culled from that study.

Climate would still be studied even if the conclusions
were more mundane.

Surely there is a tendency for a scientist to hype the
importance of his work, he/she HAS to 'hype' it as a
routine part of the grant proposal process. So you do
have an argument in that respect.

For a scientist to bias his results in order to obtain
more funding is a different matter. That would be
like a doctor faking test results in order to treat
a patient for the wrong illness.

Unconscious bias is always a concern, indeed,
in science the word bias is defined broadly, to
include all systematic effects, known and unknown,
that confound a conclusion. We certainly have
seen 'epidemics' of caesarian sections and
multiple personality disorder sweep through
the medical industry. But historically we
have also seen scientists criticized for hyping
the dangers of smoking, silicosis, nonsterile
surgical conditions, hiv/aids, and for promoting
fluoridation, immunization, and pollution
abatement.

What separates the grain from the chaff? Left to
to its work, science does.

One of the most 'popular' alternatives to anthropogenic
causes that is suggested for global climate change
is variation in the solar constant. Even a casual
web search shows that research in that area is
funded and published. No fewer than five (5)
satellites have contributed to the data base.

I agree that one should regard with skepticism
a scientist who hypes global warming, but the
same skepticism should be applied to equally
vocal people who hype the opposite. Fund the
vast quiet (not silent, but quiet) majority and they
will do the hard work to sort things out.

--

FF