[jjoonathan]

> If global warming went away tomorrow -- as in, it were to be completely proven to not exist -- every single climate change scientist would be out of a job.

Your mental model of how grants get distributed to scientists is incorrect.

[RyanZAG]

As someone who has received a number of grants, I don't think I'm entirely incorrect here. Although I was exaggerating, the field would shrink dramatically, departments would be shut down or merged, journals would stop carrying articles on a wide range of subjects which would force the researchers to publish into new fields they have no prior experience in. That puts them in a position of competing with researchers already in those fields. With most institutions requiring their researchers to get into journals, you can hopefully see how this would have a very big impact on everyone's career.

I don't think there is actually a prior example of this ever happening as I don't know of any other field of study where everything is based off a single issue. And if that issue were false (yes yes, I know it isn't -- but if it was!) then the entire field would collapse. Something to think about.

[jjoonathan]

> As someone who has received a number of grants, I don't think I'm entirely incorrect here. Although I was exaggerating

Yeah, and I replied in kind. Apologies. FWIW, I played the grant game too, with a small amount of success before I jumped ship.

While you're right that climate change being proven wrong would cause a contraction in the field, I don't think this fact translates cleanly into incentives that could keep a collective lie afloat. Three reasons, if you'll pardon my bullets.

1. Whoever successfully spearheaded the change would be set for life in terms of reputation (and, more than likely, position + funding), so there's a prisoner's dilemma in favor of the truth coming out.

2. Individual studies often happen at a granularity where it's not clear whether or not they support "The Narrative" until long after they are complete. E.g. if a study's "deliverable" is to measure the blackbody radiation from Earth, the number only has relevance to the climate change argument once differenced against solar influx, inflow/outflow from heat reservoirs, nuclear heating from the core, etc.

3. The whole kerfuffle over heat storage in the deep ocean played out as one would expect if the process works, and didn't play out as one would expect if everyone were part of a coverup, intentional or otherwise. A ton of models broke, the literature generally admitted this was the case, and the cause was tracked down until its source and implications were understood.