Scientists Motivated by Cash
April 21, 2007 · By Tom Cerber
Linda Frum interviews MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen on the question of global warming. Lindzen is one of the “deniers”, but contrary to what the Gorists would have you believe, he’s a real breathing scientist who studies climate. In the interview, he makes some interesting observations on how funding structures influence what scientists do:
Q You charge that the hysteria that’s been created around global warming is an enormous financial scam. It’s all about money?
A Well, how shall I put it? It’s not all about money, but boy, there’s a lot of money floating in it. I mean, emissions trading is going to be a multi-trillion dollar market. Emissions alone would keep small countries in business.
Q Are you suggesting that scientists manipulate their findings to get in on the gravy train?
A You have to differentiate the interests of different groups. In the scientific community, your interest is for your field to be recognized so that it will have priority in government funding.
Q So you are not accusing your scientific colleagues of corruption?
A No, I’m accusing them of behaving the way scientists always behave. In other words, some years ago, when Richard Nixon declared war on cancer, almost all the biological sciences then became cancer research. I mean, I don’t call that corruption, I’m saying you orient your research so that it has a better chance to get resources.
Q And i thelps if your findings suggest something catastrophic is about to happen?
A In this case it certainly has helped. First of all, the funding increased so greatly that it exceeded the capacity of the existing field to absorb it. You’ll notice that Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came up with lots of scary things, but everything was always preceded by could, might, may, all these qualifiers. And the reason it was is those studies start out assuming there’s a lot of warming. They assume all the science is in, and then they say, ‘Well, how will this impact my field of insect-borne diseases, or agriculture, or health?’ So they are almost, by definition, going to generate catastrophic scenarios, but they will never be based on anything other than the hypothesis that this will already happen.
Nixon declares war on cancer, now everyone’s a cancer scientist. Now there’s lots of money for environment research, so everyone’s an environment scientist (including, one could add, Lindzen himself who started out as a mathematician).
More on Lindzen here.
So let’s see if I understand.
a) Governments decides something is a priority and provide funding to stimulate research in that priority area.
b) Research in the priority area is stimulated.
Phew. That’s a pretty shrewd analysis. You’re right, he really IS a good scientist.
What’s your point, Barbie?
You know, George, it’s too nice a day to spend playing “Make It More Obvious For George’s Sake”.
The point’s pretty clear. Don’t get it? Move on.
The point is Barbie really likes it here, he drops more comments on this site than his own, hmmmmm, stalking?
Bal: He seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth. You’re right to observe it’s preposterous to claim scientists are corrupt for researching things that can get them $. I suspect he’s smart enough to know that. But yet he still calls them corrupt. But in order to substantiate that, he’d have to claim they manipulate their results, which is what Frum was trying to get him to say. But he refrained, either because he lacks hard evidence or he wants to avoid getting sued. This either makes him a crank or someone with credibility who wants to keep the heat on his colleagues while collecting the evidence.
“The point is Barbie really likes it here. he drops more comments on this site than his own.”
I do. I like two kinds of conservative sites:
- the ones operated by utter lunatics like Canadian Sentinel, where you can really plumb the depths of right wing lunacy
- the ones like this, and Bound By Gravity, and Waking Up On Planet X, and a few others, where you can actually have an intelligent conversation with folks whose ideas differ from your own.
“This either makes him a crank or someone with credibility who wants to keep the heat on his colleagues while collecting the evidence.”
I’d suggest a third alternative, not quite so dramatic (given that he’s certainly not a crank). I read a healthy sceptic and a good scientist who is saying something like this:
a) There is no “certainty” in science, and attempts by scientists (or more likely, by media) to assert “certainty” are wrong:
b) In my opinion the standard that would ascribe global warming to human intervention has not yet been met, and assertion that it has is premature.
That, plus the other fairly obvious points about the impact of policy and funding priorities on research.
In short, a good scientist, on the conservative (from a scientific, not political perspective) end of the spectrum. I have no problem with what he’s saying.
I do note with some amusement that the interviewer’s bias is showing a little more that usual, however: and since the interviewer generally edits her own notes, and chooses the material to emphasize the chosen focus of the story, I’d be curious about how the unedited transcript read.
c)
Point taken Balbulican, when you have the likes the Beemer and The Whoowee feller singing in harmony it’s quite understandable to come to this site for an intelligent conversation.
My point when it comes to Friends of Science you think it absolutely crucial to reveal where they receive their funding—as though funding necessarily means bias, making Friends of Science in your words a “lobby group”—yet now your saying funding does not necessarily mean bias.
Lindzen is not the only one who appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Let me try to help you, George. Let’s start slow and easy.
Can spot the difference between these two mandates?
a) Here’s a million dollars. Please identify the cause of cancer.
b) Here’s a million dollars. Please prove that cigarettes don’t cause cancer.
(I need you to confirm you understand the difference before I give you a more complicated example.)
The difference is clear, but I don’t see how you have any justification for mandate B, some variant thereof, with respect to Friends of Science, EXCEPT to automatically assume that source of funding indicates bias. Here you’re saying the opposite.
You identify Friends of Science as a “lobby group” for their source of funding, yet now funding doesn’t necessarily say anything about scientists and their research reporting motives.
Lindzen makes a pretty solid point here that you glibly disregard: “… those studies start out assuming there’s a lot of warming. They assume all the science is in, and then they say, ‘Well, how will this impact my field of insect-borne diseases, or agriculture, or health?’ So they are almost, by definition, going to generate catastrophic scenarios, but they will never be based on anything other than the hypothesis that this will already happen.”
“The difference is clear.”
Very good. Now let’s try another one.
Can you spot the difference between these two mandates?
a) Here’s a million dollars. Please determine whether or not human activity is contributing to global warming.
b) Here’s a million dollars. Please prove that the Kyoto Accord is bad.
The difference is clear.
Do you have any evidence, beyond source of funding, to conclude that the actual scientists involved with Friends of Science drew the conclusions that they did BECAUSE of some kind of mandate B? OR is it not equally likely that the scientists involved with Friends of Science were genuinely reporting what they thought to be true?
Excellent.
So we presumably agree that there is a difference between:
a) conducting research that is open ended, and
b) conducting research directed toward a particular finding.
Now let’s consider a couple of corporate mandates, just for fun, shall we?
Forget about cancer, tobacco, Kyoto, or anything specific. Which of these two organizations, hypothetically, would you trust as a source of unbiased scientific information?
a) A group whose published intent is to change public policy and promote the revocation of a specific piece of legislation, or
b) A body mandated to conduct scientific research and report their findings?
Obviously organization B before organization A. That said, you have not demonstrated that the scientists who co-operated with the Friends of Science did not arrive at their conclusions via the means of an organization B.
And if those in organization B realize their voice is not being heard, and feel it should be, and so involve themselves with an organization A, I don’t see a problem with that.
Scientists are motivated by cash, but assuming the cash offered by big oil is the only kind that corrupts, is not well-founded; more often than not just a means to disregard the findings of the anti-man-made-climate change crowd without holding the pro-man-made-climate change crowd to the same standard.
All righty, then. Last question, George.
“Friends of Science” is a lobby group which accepts oil company funding in order to try to persuade the Government of Canada that they should renege on an accord that they fear will be bad for oil company profits.
Now who is the mysterious other funder with a vested interest in seeing the Kyoto Accord go through?
Did you read the Lindzen interview?
The government bureaucracy itself. As Lindzen says, “You’ll notice that Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came up with lots of scary things, but everything was always preceded by could, might, may, all these qualifiers. And the reason it was is those studies start out assuming there’s a lot of warming. They assume all the science is in …”
Sorry, perhaps you inadvertently chose the wrong paragraph to quote: but your selection of quote does not illustrate your theory. If you’re arguing that funding for scientific research tends to favour existing paradigms, then I agree. It’s a lot harder to get grants for research into phrenology, copromancy, or past life regression these days.
But Lindzen is actually pointing out one of the strengths of science (as I commentend
above): GOOD science, as opposed to propaganda science, is ALWAYS preceded by “could, may, all these qualifiers”. Good science observes what’s happening, formulates hypotheses, tests them, gets them peer reviewed, publishes the findings, waits for replication of finding, and makes a prediction that’s specific and measurable based on whatever model they’re proposing.
Let’s put aside the combatative tone for a bit and talk about what’s really happening in the real world here.
As I said in our other discussion, you need to keep in mind the distinction between science and policy. Almost all the scientists I’ve ever worked with are professionals who take their work and its integrity extremely seriously. Kyoto is one thing - a political response to a rather large amount of scientific evidence. But the IPCC is quite another, and their science is pretty darned good.
In addition to the policy level and the science level, you have media, who thrive on stories about disaster and conflict, and like to simplify things for the most cretinous share of their markets. They are not equipped to either understand or explain the science behing global warming, or even the nature of science. So they turn to spokespersons for both “camps” and try to get them to utter the most exciting sound bite they can. And they try to frame in terms of conflict - man against nature, or man against man.
A very, very, VERY few scientists on both sides play that game. Almost inevitably, though, they try to qualify their statements (as Lindzen did) to make it clear that they are talking about an evolving current model - because EVERY model in science is evolving. The data is never “all in”; heck, it turns out Newtonian physics is incomplete. Who could have seen that coming? Media folks, however, edit their own interviews, and will extract from a scientist’s carefully conditional statements the most inflammatory rendering they can.
That’s why the whole discussion is so weirdly distorted, and why so much of it is irrelevant. We’re arguing about whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite (usually misspelled, for some reason), or whether the Friends of Science are legit. The fundamental debate should be: how good is the science, and how accurate are the short term predictions based on the model turning out to be?
I’ve found that Kyoto opponents tend to fall into two categories. There are folks who oppose it because it offends their general ideological preference to see government take a hands off approach; and there are those who are afraid they are going to lose money. I actually have more sympathy for the second group, who are at least fighting a reality-based fight for personal gain: I don’t have much use for the badly informed political theorists of ANY stripe who edit or ignore reality to suit their ideology.
Believe it or not, I’m not much of an ideologue in any direction, including the environment. I came to my current views on climate change through a few routes - a careful reading of the summary documents of the third and fourth major reports from IPCC, more in depth reading of some of the technical reports in areas that interest me (largely arctic), and many hours of chat with folks in the Ottawa U and federal science circles. The sceptics/deniers are doing something very useful, as they do all the time in every branch of science: like Devil’s Advocates, they scrutinize and critique findings, look for anomalies and flaws in the model, and propose alternative scenarios and explanations. That’s science.
Thanks, you provide solid commentary.
Government bureaucracy operates on existing paradigms, and if those paradigms are not an accurate picture, which in this case critics of global warming are suggesting, then the bureaucracy itself can be a political actor pushing one side of the story.
What I find tiresome is the effort by many in the global warming debate to demonize the oil and gas industry. Big oil is not like big tabocco because unlike big tabacco it NEEDS to operate as a conglomerate due to the high cost and risk of oil and gas exploration; so it has its fingers in all sectors of the economy. It is a huge employer providing many good jobs and doesn’t necessarily want to pooch the environment for all of humanity just to make a few bucks.
I find the paranoia around big oil a bit much, although I’m certainly not arguing that government should absent itself from enforcing environmental regulation.
I agree with you here: “The fundamental debate should be: how good is the science, and how accurate are the short term predictions based on the model turning out to be?”
When it comes to actual policy, like Kyoto, the oil and gas industry has a great deal at stake and should be a serious voice at the table; being a huge sector of Canada’s economy. I suspect they saw their support for the Friends of Science as a way giving voice to their concerns, and I don’t think the scientists involved are necessarily biased; what they are saying could very well come from good science.
As far as Kyoto, Canada needs to better assess what lies in its national interest. If Kyoto is too far removed from Canada’s national interest, then we shouldn’t do it. The world is a dangerous place, and purposely damaging our economy when other parts of the world—under despotic regimes—are not nearly as constrained by Kyoto, is geopolitically stupid and could very well be suicidal for us.
Should environmental protection be a priority? Yes, but within our national interest; at least to the extent that our economy is not overly compromised, compromising our national security in turn.
“Government bureaucracy operates on existing paradigms, and if those paradigms are not an accurate picture, which in this case critics of global warming are suggesting, then the bureaucracy itself can be a political actor pushing one side of the story.”
But the government has no vested in findings on either side: if anything, the government would be vastly happier if the research they were funding came back with the answer No Problem. That would make everyone very happy: no looming economic crisis, no Western Canada to assuage, no oil patch to mollify, and no need for costly legislation and new technology development.
Given the rate at which environmental data (NOT policy, but data) is being quietly pulled off government websites, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to suggest that scientists OR bureaucrats are currying favour or reaping big grants by saying there’s a problem where none exists.
‘What I find tiresome is the effort by many in the global warming debate to demonize the oil and gas industry.’
I sympathize. I find the tendency to argue against global warming by mocking Al Gore or David Suzuki equally annoying, irrelevant, and pointless.
I assume that The oil and gas industry is an industry like any other, staffed by folks who are mostly good, competent professionals. They’re not evil, they’re simply the suppliers of a commodity. But any corporation, BY LAW, is accountable for maximizing the return to shareholders. That is the purpose of a business. They are NOT in the business of reducing emissions. There are a number of trends afoot which may have a significant negative affect on profits, including legislation and conservation measures. By their nature, companies have a duty to their shareholders (and their employees) to seek to mitigate the impact of those trends. That’s not “evil”, and I’m not demonizing them: that’s the way business works. I know - that’s what I do for a living.
“the oil and gas industry has a great deal at stake and should be a serious voice at the table.”
Depends on which table, in my opinion. I fully agree they should have a voice in discussing mitigation, economic impacts, transition management, and the areas in which they have both expertise and a serious stake. But as far as the assessment of climate change science, no (in my opinion). They have an enormous vested interest in one specific research outcome.
‘I suspect they saw their support for the Friends of Science as a way giving voice to their concerns.”
Well, I guess we’re looking at two scenarios here. You believe that the oil companies are acting from a pure concern for good science. I believe that the oil companies are funding anti Kyoto propaganda out of self interest. In fact, they ARE funding anti Kyoto propaganda (the website says pretty much that), and it IS in their best interests.
‘I don’t think the scientists involved are necessarily biased; what they are saying could very well come from good science.”
I agree. I have a problem, however, with cherry picking results because they’re in sync with a political goal. You can’t have it both ways. If you weigh the evidence on both sides of the argument with the same scale (number of studies, findings, replicability, predictive value, etc.) then the IPCC side comes out overwhelmingly ahead. (I’m using a shorthand here: much of the work done at Ottawa U and McGill has nothing to do with IPCC).
‘As far as Kyoto, Canada needs to better assess what lies in its national interest. If Kyoto is too far removed from Canada’s national interest, then we shouldn’t do it.”
Well, I don’t believe the scariest media spins put on the current global warming trend by media (not, by and large, by the scientists themselves): they tend to be straight line extrapolations of unmitigated worst trends. Similary, I don’t believe the Conservative economic catastrophists. I guess I’m an equal opportunity denier.
and I don’t think the scientists involved are necessarily biased; what they are saying could very well come from good science.
I also think it is unfair to lump bureaucrats together in this respect, given they are obliged to follow the orders of their ministers.
STE: You’re right. There are no examples of bureaucrats motivated by career advancement and the incentives set out by their superiors, especially when their superiors want them to hide things. Nope. Can’t think of any examples.
Tom, I am not saying that there are people like that in the public service. However, you must agree that their numbers are VERY small in comparison to those who go to work every day and implement the decisions of their political masters and provide the services to Canadians as agreed upon by Cabinet. There are a lot of public servants who care deeply about the files they work on, and many times find themselves torn between what they believe is the right thing to do, and the political decisions taken by the government of the day. So again, before you go lumping all public servants into one self interested group, I suggest that you actaully take a look at how things work. Remember, without public servants, there would be no government action at all.
“There are no examples of bureaucrats motivated by career advancement and the incentives set out by their superiors, especially when their superiors want them to hide things.”
Point taken, Tom. We should therefore be even more grateful to those folks at NRCan and Environment Canada with the guts to resist the current attempt to conceal data and cancel programs that don’t neatly fit the current climate of Conservative denial.
Is that after we fire those who didn’t resist that of the Liberals?
Huh?
Tom, you can do better than that.
Bal, you’re right. I guess my fine turned wit is too distracted today. Cheers.
The curse of brilliance, my son - others come to expect it of you. It is a heavy cross we bear.