[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.