[jbooth]

"figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer."

So let's get this straight. Your theory is that a 95% scientific consensus exists because they're all trying to make money off a scam? What's the scam, you get a PhD, postdoc, do 4 years of research at poverty-level wages and you get a 40k grant? Wow, that's effective.

Wouldn't they just work in finance or technology if they wanted money? Or, if they know climate science, they could probably just call the coal industry and build graphs saying the opposite for 10X what they're making right now.

So the reality's actually the exact opposite of your statement.

[enko]

I think what you say is wrong. I am reasonably confident that in any middling govt job, eg school teacher, in which advancement relies on lip service for the status quo, you would be sure to see 95% support for same.

"Trying to make money off a scam" is way too strong. "Trying to keep their heads down and fit in" maybe. I can see that happening, sure. BTW I am neither for nor against global warming†, just wanted to disagree with your thesis.

† I really just don't know what to think.

[ced]

Scientists may not care much about money... But they care a great deal about peer recognition, status, buying expensive hardware to do simulations, having a lot of grad students, etc.

All of those would disappear if convincing evidence against climate change were found. I once heard a top scientist in solar science complain that his field had been corrupted that way.

I agree that Science is our best hope for understanding climate, but let's not idealize it.

[jbooth]

Yeah, so in that field, if you're one of the 5% guys and you're actually right, and can make a convincing case? Total meal ticket. Everyone loves the David beats Goliath story when David wins.

The problem isn't incentives, it's evidence. The overwhelming majority of evidence points towards an existing warming trend that's exacerbated by CO2.

[ced]

In solar science, the reason we get so much money is that satellite-launching agencies would like us to produce a "solar weather forecast", because solar eruptions can severely damage equipment in orbit. The top scientist I mentioned earlier had a paper that basically said:

"Solar weather forecasting is much more complicated than anticipated. The medium-term prospects are grim."

He bitterly complained that his paper was ignored. All the other scientists were busy making (possibly hopeless) predictions and applying for more grants. See also: the AI winter.

Yeah, so in that field, if you're one of the 5% guys and you're actually right, and can make a convincing case?

The issue here is that in a complex field, with such incredible uncertainty, when do we ever have a truly "convincing case"? Who's to be the judge on that? Hacker News readers? The government? So that leaves us with the other scientists. If they are any good, they'll graciously acknowledge the challenger's criticism. But if they are heavily invested in the status quo, they might find it easier to just ignore you.

I love science. But I'm uneasy its politicization. We've discussed a prominent scientist's resignation from the American Physical Society before: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1775143 The top comment was great.

[16s]

The scam is this... they all own stock in Toyota.

The same people who cannot accurately predict whether or not it will rain tomorrow know with 100% certainty that the polar ice caps will melt if I don't buy a Prius.

[shadowfox]

> The same people who cannot accurately predict whether or not it will rain tomorrow know with 100% certainty that the polar ice caps will melt if I don't buy a Prius.

Citation?