Hi,
As to the article you link, there are two very important points:
The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s.
Check out their mission. Note that it is *not* their mission to determine the truth. It is their mission to support, as much as possible, the threat of climatic change. In their mission statement, they assume the conclusions that they claim their model supports. Do you think that, at any time, a model that didn't support their claims would have been considered 'wrong' and replaced with one that did? Do you think that, had their computer model predicted no effect or minimal effect, they would have gone back to their backers and said, "We were wrong. The money you gave us was wasted. We won't bother you for additional funding in the future." Believe me, the graduate students would not have gotten their degrees, the nontenured professors would not have gotten tenure, and the research career of the tenured professors would have slowed to a crawl, if not ended completely (not to mention their reserved parking spaces would be on the far side of town and their offices would be a broom closet in the basement).
This work was supported in part by grants from the Office of Science of the U.S. Dept. of Energy, and by the industrial and foundation sponsors of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.
The position of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change was discussed above. That of the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy can be seen from this request for proposals. DoE competes for its funding in Congress against all other government agencies. Do you really think that a good going-in position for them is "we've got a minor problem, but give us billions anyway"? In light of that, do you think a response to the linked RFP that says, "We've got a model that shows you're over-stating the problem and we'd like you to fund us to further develop that model.", would be warmly embraced and richly funded?
Again, I'm *not* saying that their results are wrong. I'm saying that their research is *not* unbiased. Unfortunately, nowadays research follows the golden rule; them that have the gold make the rule. And there are no large unbiased sources for research funds. Everywhere you look are axes that someone wants ground, and the only way to get the money is to promise to grind the axe.
--Pete
Quote:Where would MIT sit on your scale of 'those whose livelihood depends on generating scare models'?Right there with all the rest. Believe me, the competition for funding drives a lot more than the political hot button questions. Politically non-controversial questions are also effected. Look at the history of cosmological theories, plate tectonics (go back to 'continental drift'), virology and cancer, bacteria and stomach ulcers, etc., etc. If it's not popular, it's not funded. And if it's not 'spectacular', it's often not popular.
As to the article you link, there are two very important points:
The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s.
Check out their mission. Note that it is *not* their mission to determine the truth. It is their mission to support, as much as possible, the threat of climatic change. In their mission statement, they assume the conclusions that they claim their model supports. Do you think that, at any time, a model that didn't support their claims would have been considered 'wrong' and replaced with one that did? Do you think that, had their computer model predicted no effect or minimal effect, they would have gone back to their backers and said, "We were wrong. The money you gave us was wasted. We won't bother you for additional funding in the future." Believe me, the graduate students would not have gotten their degrees, the nontenured professors would not have gotten tenure, and the research career of the tenured professors would have slowed to a crawl, if not ended completely (not to mention their reserved parking spaces would be on the far side of town and their offices would be a broom closet in the basement).
This work was supported in part by grants from the Office of Science of the U.S. Dept. of Energy, and by the industrial and foundation sponsors of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.
The position of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change was discussed above. That of the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy can be seen from this request for proposals. DoE competes for its funding in Congress against all other government agencies. Do you really think that a good going-in position for them is "we've got a minor problem, but give us billions anyway"? In light of that, do you think a response to the linked RFP that says, "We've got a model that shows you're over-stating the problem and we'd like you to fund us to further develop that model.", would be warmly embraced and richly funded?
Again, I'm *not* saying that their results are wrong. I'm saying that their research is *not* unbiased. Unfortunately, nowadays research follows the golden rule; them that have the gold make the rule. And there are no large unbiased sources for research funds. Everywhere you look are axes that someone wants ground, and the only way to get the money is to promise to grind the axe.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?