Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid
Why would they do that? What do all these scientists have to gain from perpetrating this great big fraud?
What's their motive? Just curious.
|
Depends on the person, which is why this is not some "global conspiracy" as you keep trying to suggest, but many small parts each playing for their own reward.
To answer your question though, government grants is one thing. We already see that the IPCC was heavily political and had such motives of influence from agenda groups. Governments saw the tax and power grab from such "science" as their backing.
So, if you want to keep getting funding, you provide results that fit what those writing your checks expect. For instance, Jones pulled in around 25 million in donations/grant money one year (you can see this in the excel portions of the C1 data).
Then there are other motivations, for instance, people like James Hansen are activists to their cause already, so... they have a strong bias pushing their work. Is it deliberate? With some it may be, with others may not, just honest bias creeping in.
There are foul parties at play here though (most are political influenced administrations and organizations), but I wouldn't call the entire "climate science" fiasco an elaborate conspiracy as much as it was simply individuals each having a stake in the game and allowing the the poor science to continue on in order to meet their own needs (whatever that may be).
Some are even duped into believing based on the fact that poor research gets through.
For instance, read this:
Behind Closed Doors: “Perpetuating Rubbish” « Climate Audit
You can see, an extremely poor series was used again and again throughout multiple proxies and often it was heavily weighted, even though the first occurrence of it was noted as being "crap" and never should be used with multiproxy studies. It was commented as being such in the emails, but... interestingly this was never brought up in the review comments in peer review by the same person. So, this poor series was continued over and over in multiple studies.
Now why is that? Is it incompetence? How could it be, it was noted before that it was, they all knew that it was, but why did it continue to show up in the research and was never caught in the peer review? Why did it take a 3rd party evaluating it on their own time to point out this problem (McIntyre/Mckitrick).
We don't know why they are doing what they are doing. Some it appears because they are "believers" in a "cause", for others... it seems simply arrogance and limelight. Why they do it really depends on the person and their specifics.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
