Conspiracy Among Scientists?
(The following is a transcript of co-host 2Buck Chuck’s (Dr. Charles A. Doswell III) segment “Leading Horses To Water” which airs on my American Heathen® radio show. Chuck is a world-renowned scientist in the field of meteorology. Air date of this particular segment – 10/13/12)
Ancient Greeks began the way of thinking originally known as natural philosophy but which we now call science. Science emerged as we know it during the Renaissance, in an age dominated by fear, superstition, injustice, and brutality. In other words, pretty much like the present. These musings are aimed at explaining how science works, and how science can serve even nonscientists in their efforts to make sense of the world. I can try to explain things but it’s up to you to decide whether or not you wish to drink from these waters.
The topic of global climate change continues to be in the news, so I’m discussing it again. A while back, I offered the opinion that it was absurd to even entertain the notion that hundreds of global climate change scientists (as represented by the IPCC consensus) have been engaging in a conspiracy to promulgate scientific ideas and results known to be wrong, purely for personal gain. I described how funding for science really works and why the safeguards against misuse of those funds for personal gain make it impossible for most of the scientists participating in global climate change science to add significantly to their income by promoting this alleged conspiracy. There is no plausible reason for such a cabal to exist. If there’s any chance for a conspiracy to push bad science onto the public, it’s most likely in the private sector, where backing for global climate change deniers supports a small number of vocal scientists (most of whom are not global climate change scientists!) who may be benefitting from that backing. Recently, one of the more credible deniers actually reversed his stance and now believes the scientific consensus.
But precisely how and why is a widespread conspiracy among scientists such an unlikely situation? One argument against such a conspiracy is something you’re either going to trust me on, or you won’t. In my experience, virtually all of my scientific colleagues are working long and hard to figure out what’s going on in the natural world. The very idea of intentionally producing false results is for all practical purposes, unthinkable to most of us. Why would we promote ideas we know to be wrong? Yes, there are a few isolated individual cases of scientific fraud discovered every year. And the penalty for perpetrating scientific fraud is swift and irrevocable: a complete and utter loss of credibility for the likely short duration of one’s subsequent scientific career following the revelation of a scientific fraud. Publishing incorrect results, using flawed methods, drawing inappropriate conclusions – these errors happen unintentionally all the time. Errors and mistakes eventually are discovered and corrected. There’s no serious penalty for making inadvertent or even stupid errors. But to mislead intentionally is both unforgivable and difficult to prove.
We scientists make no claim to being perfect, although the egos of some of us are fragile enough to find it difficult to admit mistakes. We make mistakes all the time, so our peer-reviewed publications are not filled only with truth, but include errors and misconceptions of all sorts. Science works on the principle of an evolving consensus about the workings on the natural world; it’s a process that can never end with the achievement of some immutable “truth”. Science simply doesn’t recognize the concept of immutable truth! The consensus is always provisional, subject to review by any one of us, and subject to revision when the evidence forces us to abandon earlier notions that proved to be inadequate or inaccurate. However, anyone who would deliberately mislead colleagues by publishing results known to be incorrect would be ostracized instantly from the scientific community forever, regardless of any other institutional or judicial punishment.
I talked about the peer review process a while back. It’s not perfect, but if someone attempts scientific fraud, a serious challenge to that fraud is peer review. Any bogus results stand a good chance of being discovered during peer review and fraudulent findings are likely to be detected and rejected before ever being published in a scientific journal.
However, even if someone seeking to publish false results somehow manages to slip it past peer review and publishes a result that contravenes the consensus, that work instantly becomes a target for those in the scientific community who continue to believe in the correctness of the consensus. The standard of evidence for a major change to the consensus is set very high – as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! It’s likely deliberately bad science would be challenged even if it were to be published. Just being published in a refereed journal is not like papal imprimatur!
Despite the likely reaction to challenging the consensus, each of us must make a name for ourselves within the profession by proposing changes to the consensus. If all you can contribute as a scientist is “Me, too!” to the consensus, then your career will be pretty much undistinguished. Proposed changes to the consensus run the gamut from wholesale revolution (like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity) to minor changes regarding some esoteric point. If someone were to propose a major paradigm shift within the consensus, their work would be run through a gauntlet of challenges from other scientists.
Now try to imagine literally hundreds of scientists conspiring to promote something they actually know to be a scientific falsehood. The very idea of such a thing is well beyond being ridiculous. How could such a cabal be kept secret? What would be the point of doing it? How and why would hundreds of scientists endanger their scientific careers for a cause that could not offer them some enormous benefit to compensate for taking such a risk? It’s one thing for a particular scientist to take what amounts to an incorrect position on some topic – this actually happens all the time, of course! But to engage hundreds of others in an effort to lead the science down a path known to be incorrect? Utterly and absolutely preposterous! It would be an enormous, simultaneous betrayal by hundreds of individuals of everything that led them to become scientists in the first place. Sadly, some well-known scientists have attacked global climate change science with exactly the accusation that it’s a gigantic conspiracy to perpetuate bad science for personal gain. To disagree is one thing, but to impugn the motives of hundreds of colleagues is quite a leap! It can be argued that it’s a major ethics violation to make such an accusation without extremely compelling evidence. No one has yet done so.
Among the things that attracted me to a career in science was the recognition that an absolute commitment to professional integrity is the sine qua non of science. Deliberate falsehood is anathema! Being wrong is no problem, but being deliberately wrong is nothing less than unforgivable! No true scientist could participate in such a conspiracy. Perhaps some small number of individuals might be able to rationalize doing so, but a successful conspiracy involving the majority of global climate change scientists is simply not possible. Only a nonscientist could entertain such an idea!
When you hear such things in the media, reject them for the utter nonsense they are!
Science is not a religion but rather a tool for those who wish to think for themselves about the natural world. Its primary characteristic is its willingness to entertain questions from those who wish to obtain believable answers.
October 13, 2012 at 11:21 pm
You must have been on another planet then when the Climategate scandal broke in 2009. I’m sure that you already know, but others might not, that the so-called IPCC consensus has disintegrated and the global warming proponents have dropped that idea in favor of “climate change”. Not a difficult decision on their part inasmuch as most scientists (certainly all the ones that I know and all the ones that I have read about in scientific journals) pretty much agree that the planet is now cooling and an ice age lies not to far off in our future. Since the myth of global warming has been exposed, the same people who brought us that fiction now want to blame all of the planet’s ills on climate change, despite it being a part of the natural cycle of the planet. Good luck with that. By the way, the majority of funding for science comes from government with all the attendant strings, and corruption, attached.
October 13, 2012 at 11:52 pm
Thanks for your comment. I’m certain Chuck will have a reply for you soon. In the meantime, I have a response of my own…
Your comment is a rehash of rather old arguments, and you did not provide a single piece of evidence or source to substantiate your claims. Might I suggest you read the About RJ Evans – The American Heathen section of the blog. It spells out, quite clearly, that evidence and a substantive argument are required.
Might I also suggest that you offer up something other than climate denier talking points that have been repeatedly rebutted successfully by individuals who actually study and understand the dynamics involved in climate change/global warming.
The only reason I have published your comment is to allow the blog post’s author to respond. If you choose to respond to future posts here, please utilize resources that provide evidence and facts to back up your statements.
RJ Evans
American Heathen®
October 14, 2012 at 5:20 am
RJ
Didn’t meant to get involved in a debate over science, since I’m not a scientist. However….the emails from East Anglican University are a fact. The investigation by the British Parliament into East Anglican is a fact. The statement by the British government that East Anglican violated Britain’s Freedom of Information Act is a fact. The results of the Copenhagen Summit are a fact. I could go on but I’d only be debating myself. As a writer/researcher I deal in both facts and opinion. The information presented in the blog is an opinion. No proof is presented in support of that opinion. A number of people that I know in the scientific community respectfully disagree with said opinion.
October 14, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Chicagoja – I find it rather amusing that you would propose I’ve unilaterally swept aside the “controversy” arising from Climategate. In my own blog, I’ve discussed this at some length. There were nine (as I recall) independent investigations of the “charges” resulting from the illegal hacking of the East Anglia computers by a variety of organizations, and EVERY ONE OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS EXONERATED THE PARTICIPANTS FROM ANY WRONGDOING AFTER LOOKING AT ALL THE ‘FACTS’ OF THE CASE! Every one!! Case closed!!
You’ll call that a whitewash, of course. All climate change deniers do so, and I expect nothing less from a nonscientist denier. All it takes is charges of a conspiracy and you can ignore everything else, it seems.
You admit you’re not a scientist, but then claim that your status as a “writer/researcher” entitles you to decide what in my blog was fact and what part was opinion. How is that? Just what the hell do you know about science and how it’s really done? Answer : You know precisely NOTHING about it! Your use of the word “proof” makes it quite clear you’re not a scientist, because science never “proves” anything! Interpretations are seen as consistent with the evidence – or not – not as proof.
Just how many people in the scientific community do you actually know? As luck would have it, as a practicing scientist, I know hundreds of meteorologists around the world, including some of those very climate change scientists involved with the IPCC you’re accusing of being involved in a vast conspiracy. Many of my scientist colleagues disagree with some aspect of my viewpoint or another. So what? Disagreements are part and parcel of an active science. Frankly, I don’t give a shit if someone disagrees with me – it establishes precisely nothing for that to be the case. But it’s extremely insulting to the integrity of my friends to even begin to entertain the absurd notion they would publish scientific findings they know to be false!
Those are extraordinary charges and the standard of evidence for backing up such a charge would have to be comparably extraordinary. We may finally have to accept that Lance Armstrong was a doper, but the evidence for it has become overwhelming. Where is the overwhelming evidence for this widespread cabal among climate change scientists to push falsehoods into the science? Answer: THERE IS NONE! If there were, heads would be rolling in the climate change science community.
You claim to know “a number” (unspecified) of people in the scientific community who evidently believe there’s a conspiracy going on to promote false science for the personal gain of those scientists involved in that conspiracy. You didn’t name names – can you? Will you?
You accuse me of not presenting any evidence. Your “climategate evidence” is pure denier delusion, as ALL the investigations into that incident have shown. There IS no credible evidence for this vast conspiracy you’re claiming. You and your fellow deniers won’t be swayed by anything we can throw at you, for reasons of your own, but such claims are simply pathetic paranoid delusions by people who simply don’t want to believe what the overwhelming EVIDENCE shows – AGW is real and is being enhanced significantly by human activities.
Some AGW advocates may have gone too far in some of their public statements, and they are rightfully being criticized by other scientists for that. Does that sound like a conspiracy to YOU?
October 14, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Thank you for your comments. They were very well reasoned, but then I would expect nothing less from a scientist. I responded to your blog simply because its content was very one-sided ( and of course in your opinion true). I’m okay with that because everybody is entitled to their opinion. I simply wanted to state an alternative opinion, which I have researched extensively, and which is shared by many of your peers. My point was not to engage in a debate but to let others, if they’re so interested, research the issue themselves and form their own opinion. I appreciate the opportunity to have done just that. Thanks again.