Sure. All researchers are scrounging to find grants.
I did read that article. Isn't one of the findings was that the data that was left out didn't change the results? Leaving it out just helped clarify the results? I guess if people did the opposite, they could include hundreds of 'possible' things that would really muddy the results.
Everyone in every form of writing is taught to stick to the basics and leave out extraneous 'possibilities' to clarify the message. That is just being succinct. If it doesn't change the results, then it is a matter of style.
I'm just saying the scale is orders of magnitude different.
You were equating the incentives of pretty lowly researchers scrounging for grants to do very basic research, to big money food production companies with huge incentives to sway opinions.
The climate scientist is not promoting a product, sure they want to get the next grant, and that is just how research is. But that is a really low bar. I don't think any grants specify that the results of the previous grant better result in "X".
That would be like saying, "I better produce something that proves that String Theory is real or I wont get another grant". -- OOOPS. Might have contradicted myself since string theory is garbage.
So.
All studies, as all humans, have bias.
All academic fields have bias.
So with all studies in all fields, the bias has to be factored in.
It was only a few years ago really that hundreds of studies said smoking was not only safe, but could be healthy. But those were corporate studies.
And like the protein study, there is just far greater scales of bias in corporate funded studies. They have bigger money, bigger stakes, more to protect.
The lowly climate scientist isn't getting much beyond a citation and enough money for dinner.
This narrative that there is some big money in climate science is a full on press of BS to discredit it, by the same people producing biased studies to disprove it. Just like with Tabaco companies.
>You were equating the incentives of pretty lowly researchers scrounging for grants to do very basic research, to big money food production companies with huge incentives to sway opinions.
I wasn't defending the corporation.
>The climate scientist is not promoting a product, sure they want to get the next grant, and that is just how research is. But that is a really low bar. I don't think any grants specify that the results of the previous grant better result in "X".
So you agree, there are perverse incentives to keep climate research funding flowing. That was my assertion.
No. I do NOT agree that climate science has any incentives beyond any research topic any any field. There are no 'perverse incentives' special to climate science. I never said that.
You are really taking some generic statements about how all research must guard against bias, about how bias is a characteristic in all humans. And then micro-focusing on climate science seeming to assert that this one particular field is much more biased than all other fields.
To do this you need to come up with some proof.
Saying all research contains some bias, climate science is research, thus climate science is biased, -> Is really just trolling.
You know gravity is just a theory, it is researched, that doesn't mean research on gravity is biased thus gravity is not real.
>And then micro-focusing on climate science seeming to assert that this one particular field is much more biased than all other fields.
I don't believe I asserted climate science was much more biased. I was just acknowledging the perverse incentive. I did assert it was very well funded though.
k.
I thought you were applying the "perverse incentive" to Climate Science specifically.
If you are saying all research, across all fields, has a "perverse incentive", that the entire research system across all disciplines is 'perverse', then I might agree.
There was whole thread on HN about this subject recently, sorry, don't have link.
BUT. In all the complaining about how research is currently done, I've not seen anybody come up with a credible alternative. You still need funding, still need a way to filter out crap, so still need some reviews by 'experts', that would still have biases.
I did read that article. Isn't one of the findings was that the data that was left out didn't change the results? Leaving it out just helped clarify the results? I guess if people did the opposite, they could include hundreds of 'possible' things that would really muddy the results.
Everyone in every form of writing is taught to stick to the basics and leave out extraneous 'possibilities' to clarify the message. That is just being succinct. If it doesn't change the results, then it is a matter of style.
I'm just saying the scale is orders of magnitude different.
You were equating the incentives of pretty lowly researchers scrounging for grants to do very basic research, to big money food production companies with huge incentives to sway opinions.
The climate scientist is not promoting a product, sure they want to get the next grant, and that is just how research is. But that is a really low bar. I don't think any grants specify that the results of the previous grant better result in "X".
That would be like saying, "I better produce something that proves that String Theory is real or I wont get another grant". -- OOOPS. Might have contradicted myself since string theory is garbage.
So. All studies, as all humans, have bias. All academic fields have bias.
So with all studies in all fields, the bias has to be factored in.
It was only a few years ago really that hundreds of studies said smoking was not only safe, but could be healthy. But those were corporate studies.
And like the protein study, there is just far greater scales of bias in corporate funded studies. They have bigger money, bigger stakes, more to protect.
The lowly climate scientist isn't getting much beyond a citation and enough money for dinner.
This narrative that there is some big money in climate science is a full on press of BS to discredit it, by the same people producing biased studies to disprove it. Just like with Tabaco companies.