I have heard several times that if you are a scientist and you have a different opinion than the majority?

Question

on global warming/climate change, you are silenced, funds are taken away and you are shunned from the scientific community. Are there specific examples of this? I'm having trouble finding reliable sources and credentials for these dissenters. Links would help. Thanks

Thanks for the link, Ash. That's what I was looking for. Problem is the article is just he said/she said and I couldn't find anything to verify the claims made.

Answer 1

I have never personally witnessed any scientists get their funding pulled for having different views.
However, i have witnessed several completely destroy their careers, get their funding pulled, and be dismissed for trying to support their views with obviously flawed data.

If you haven't noticed, most of the people crying about the situation you mentioned, are people who in the past have supported things like ....second hand smoke not being dangerous to passive smokers, or that the continents do not drift, when the evidence was right in front of their faces.

I to, am skeptical of the causes of global warming, but that doesn't make the factors attributed to it, any less of a danger to health and environment, as many skeptics are trying to portray.
they make these claims without any way to test their ideas, because they haven't been tested, before they make such claims. If a scientist is going to make a claim without first performing an experiment to prove his/her claims, then they have lost what is means to be scientifically reliable, and maybe they should lose their funding.

If this was fact, that scientists have lost funding for AGW views, don't you think you would see it on the front page news all over the planet when they filed lawsuits??

here is an example of the obviously flawed data that i mentioned.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.html

Answer 2

Good article, Ash.

Nevertheless, one must understand that Science and Nature are basically for the consumption of non-scientists. They publish the stories that sell the most magazines.

The scientific community is always subject to politics , both internally and externally - not ideal, but more or less impossible to avoid, human nature being what it is.

But I wouldn't blame the scientific community for what, in my opinion, is the misrepresentation of man's contribution to global temperature increase. Take Oreske's paper from Ash's article above: She claims that of the papers she reviewed, 75% either explicitly or implicitly supported the notion that man contributes to global warming, while none explicitly dissented. Sounds like a strong consensus? A scientist who concedes the possibility that man contributes to global climate change in any amount would be considered among the 75%. In order to among those explicitly dissenting, the scientist would have had to say it's impossible for man to contribute to global warming. Given that criteria, would you say that the findings prove that man is the primary cause of global warming? This may not have been the intent of the researchers involved, including Ms. Oreskes, but nonetheless, that is how it is being interpreted by the non-scientific community - the general public.

That being said, it is not the scientific community's duty to be advocates for one particular viewpoint over another. Championing one viewpoint over another only threatens the ability to objectively perform ongoing research. They also know that ultimately, the truth will prevail.

Answer 3

I am a scientist working on climate change. I have never heard of any shunning and funding withdrawls. Scientists, in general, like opposing viewpoints because it keeps us thinking about all of the possible answers to our questions. Most funding for climate change in the U.S. comes from state and federal government sources, which despite popular belief, do not pull funding if you come up with an answer that they do not agree with. You may have trouble finding dissenters because there are not that many out there. There is evidence that global climate change is already taking place, so the "opinion" phase is essentially over. Dissenting opinions mean nothing once there is scientific evidence to dispute them. That is how science works.

Answer 4

What many laypeople do not understand is that "scientific debate"--wich is a legitimate phase in the process of investigation--does not continue indefinately. Once the facts are established--in this case that global warming exists, is caused by human activity, and is leading to climate change--the debate is over.

Offhand I don't know of any specific examples. But any scientists who continued to claim otherwise in the facte of demonstrated facts would discredit themselves--just as they would if they claimed the Earth was flat or that infectious diseases were caused by evil spirits. No one would "silence" them. But they would most certainly be shunned by the scientific community, and no one would waste money funding them.

Answer 5

I have seen claims of losing funding. Usually these are second hand accounts from people being interviewed in the popular press. These claims are of dubius merit.

To actually prove it, a researcher that lost his funding would have to come out and say, then say it was related to his contrarian AGW views, and THEN the scientist would have to prove malicious intent of the funding group (which would be very hard to do).

Answer 6

This is a common excuse used by people who don't want to believe in global warming. Lack of evidence suggests that it does not happen. Scientists are defined by their work. It takes a lot to silence them. If this was happening on a regular basis like you are suggesting, there would be evidence to support it. The fact that you cannot find reliable sources is very telling.

Answer 7

You sight an atheist paper, praising atheists, yet no evidence that ninety 3% of scientists are athiests. mutually as i don't have a randome extensive form to tug out of the air, i comprehend countless properly comprehend and respected scientists of countless faiths by potential of non-public aquaintence. in comparison to you will have the gullible have faith, athiests do no longer carry a patent on the two good judgment, inteligence and maximum definately no longer morality. a solid occasion could be your feeble attempt to seperate athiests from communists. As athiesm isn't any doubt one in each of the founding concepts of this political docterine such an attempt is the two futile and in keeping with organic denial of properly documented historic actuality. could God open your eyes and suggestions to His love and present of eternal salvation. Amen and God bless.

Answer 8

Like Phinbuddy, I too am a scientist working on climate change. Had Phinbuddy not already posted that answer I would have posted something very similar.

Answer 9

This is true, and not only now days, and not only global warming. Look what happened to Galileo!

Answer 10

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml