Saigon
Gold Member
It seems that the most popular myth used on this board is the one that scientists are only in it for the money, and that their research produces whatever results their government or sources of funding ask for.
This makes no logical sense whatsoever, and hopefully we can now put it to rest forever.
1) Most climate change science is conducted by universities. Universities in Europe and much of the developed world are bulk funded. Meaning that the government gives University X a certain amount of money each year. From that budget come salaries, rents, equipment...everything. Each faculty is given funding from that total amount, and the heads of each department plan their research accordingly. Most universities have particular areas they focus on - for instance my local Aalto University Dept of Physics works with CERN in Switzerland, and contributes to work on cloud formation and activity.
The key point: there is no connection between funding and the results of research. The system is set up in such way to ENSURE that no political interference is possible, and to ensure the independence of areas such as Political Sciences and History.
2) Universities have at times produced research which their own governments (and thus sources of funding) found embarassing. In the US, Australia and New Zealand universities produced research backing human involvement in climate change during times when their own conservative goverments denied human involvement. If scientists were protecting their jobs, throwing your own government under a bus seems like a strange move.
3) All developed countries monitor their own climate. Finland records temperatures, humidity and rainfall, and has done for a century. Using only Finnish data, we can thus build up a pattern of Finnish weather patterns. This means that no global conspiracy is possible, because obviously if Austria maniuplated their data and Switzerland did not - the results would be completely incompatible with each other. The difference would be immediately evident and suspicious.
4) Not all scientists are liberal. Most I have met have shown very little interest in party politics, and are much more concerned with producing and publishing excellent research. Given it takes 15 years or so to become a Professor of Chemistry, it is not surprising that most of these people are less interested in politics than chemistry. Most are deeply devoted to their work, and would regard any shortcuts, falsification of data or lying as being completely unacceptable. Anyone suspected of, say, plagiarism would be outed, and we know this because it has happened once or twice around the world.
5) The idea of an international conspiracy amongst scientists simply is not possible. There are too many people in too many countries, working in too many places. Any attempt to suggest that particular scientists should suppress this document or falsify this data would leave a paper trial miles long. It would only need one person to print one email and any such paper trail would be in the newspapers the next day - as we saw with the U. Anglia debacle. Hence - no conspiracy would be possiible.
My hope is that we can get beyond the endless conspiracy theories after this, and at least stick to theories and ideas which are possible and which make sense.
This makes no logical sense whatsoever, and hopefully we can now put it to rest forever.
1) Most climate change science is conducted by universities. Universities in Europe and much of the developed world are bulk funded. Meaning that the government gives University X a certain amount of money each year. From that budget come salaries, rents, equipment...everything. Each faculty is given funding from that total amount, and the heads of each department plan their research accordingly. Most universities have particular areas they focus on - for instance my local Aalto University Dept of Physics works with CERN in Switzerland, and contributes to work on cloud formation and activity.
The key point: there is no connection between funding and the results of research. The system is set up in such way to ENSURE that no political interference is possible, and to ensure the independence of areas such as Political Sciences and History.
2) Universities have at times produced research which their own governments (and thus sources of funding) found embarassing. In the US, Australia and New Zealand universities produced research backing human involvement in climate change during times when their own conservative goverments denied human involvement. If scientists were protecting their jobs, throwing your own government under a bus seems like a strange move.
3) All developed countries monitor their own climate. Finland records temperatures, humidity and rainfall, and has done for a century. Using only Finnish data, we can thus build up a pattern of Finnish weather patterns. This means that no global conspiracy is possible, because obviously if Austria maniuplated their data and Switzerland did not - the results would be completely incompatible with each other. The difference would be immediately evident and suspicious.
4) Not all scientists are liberal. Most I have met have shown very little interest in party politics, and are much more concerned with producing and publishing excellent research. Given it takes 15 years or so to become a Professor of Chemistry, it is not surprising that most of these people are less interested in politics than chemistry. Most are deeply devoted to their work, and would regard any shortcuts, falsification of data or lying as being completely unacceptable. Anyone suspected of, say, plagiarism would be outed, and we know this because it has happened once or twice around the world.
5) The idea of an international conspiracy amongst scientists simply is not possible. There are too many people in too many countries, working in too many places. Any attempt to suggest that particular scientists should suppress this document or falsify this data would leave a paper trial miles long. It would only need one person to print one email and any such paper trail would be in the newspapers the next day - as we saw with the U. Anglia debacle. Hence - no conspiracy would be possiible.
My hope is that we can get beyond the endless conspiracy theories after this, and at least stick to theories and ideas which are possible and which make sense.
