Hacker News Reader

Comment by tabtab | Hacker News Reader

A bigger problem is when and how to rely on "subject experts". My car mechanic knows far more about cars than I do, but he/she may also be biased into recommending unnecessary costly repairs to line her/her pocket.

Climate change skeptics often question the financial motivation of climatologists. It's certainly something to consider, but they rarely propose alternatives.

For example, a committee could be set up to investigate climate change science. The members would be already-retired volunteers from non-climate STEM disciplines who get the same stipend regardless of their findings, and are not permitted to receive money for books or speeches on the subject afterward. Their background would have to be mostly apolitical, meaning any political opinions in the public record are fleeting and incidental. The selection process would be similar to jury duty.

View on HN

> Climate change skeptics often question the financial motivation of climatologists. It's certainly something to consider, but they rarely propose alternatives.

I don't think this argument is being made in good faith.

More importantly, it's kind of absurd on face. Science pays horribly. See: literally any thread on HN about PhD programs. See also: levels.fyi vs. the starting salary for asst. profs at your local state university branch campus.

Whenever someone makes this argument, I show them a picture of the apartment I lived in during grad school and then point out that even the "winners" of the rat race who get professorships can leave academia and double their income over night.

The fact they are not paid well may be used as more evidence they are "bribe-able". I'm not saying they have been bribed, only that low pay cannot be reliable used as evidence either way.

It'd not just that they are not paid well. It's the fact that they have very explicitly and consistently chosen science over money. If they wanted money, they could switch jobs tomorrow and have more money (and more free time).

Climate researchers mostly have tenure. They cannot be fired for going against majority opinion. And in most countries except the US, they do not rely on outside funding to any significant degree.

So participating in a giant fraud would actually be the most dangerous option for them, financially. Instead, they could expose it and, if convincing, would at the very least make a lot of money on book deals and the lecture circuit. Maybe even a Nobel.

Alternatively, they could switch their focus. With a solid foundation in physics, dynamic systems, etc. there are any number of topics they could easily work on.

I agree with you, but that's not enough to convince roughly 40% of the country who think the results stem from financial influence.

Thus, I'd like to ask that 40%: what kind of commission or study technique would you be satisfied with?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com