EconTech

I often here the claim that goes something like this:

These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way. — John Coleman (founder TWC)

Of course, the people making these types of arguments are those who think they know exactly how left wing and corrupt academia are. Nevertheless, at first glance, you may think this is solid economic reasoning. After all, it analyzes incentives, which is what economics is all about, right? Wrong. Because it neglects the alternative incentives. If one of these tried and true, anti-climate change researchers came along and showed how the climate scientists are all wrong, how they have fabricated their data or massaged it in an invalid manner, then all of the authors would be out of a job. There is nothing in academia so bad as fabricating data (which is the basic claim), and anyone caught doing it does not get a second chance. They will be evicted from their office and unable to find employment in their field just about anywhere that cares about reasoned analysis. Maybe Greenpeace or a Big Tobacco will hire them, but there is not exactly a plethora of jobs out there for corrupt researchers. Plus, the person showing conclusively that climate change is a fiction will get tons of money from those interested in the current energy systems to continue their research and continue exposing the frauds. It should be clear that the incentives are in line to pursue ‘truth’ in research, even if you have your pet ideas you are trying to show; they still have to be vetted.

Not convinced? Consider a parallel argument:

Doctors make money from people being sick. If no one was ever sick, medicine would be out of business (except plastic surgeons). Thus, doctors have a strong incentive to make people more sick. The patients will keep coming back and thanking them for providing ‘magic medicines’ (or surgeries). Most importantly, they, or their insurance company, will continue paying for these treatments.

Of course, I wouldn’t stop there. Any doctor caught making their patients sick would go before the hospital’s board, and the state medical board, and be severely punished. No one accuses doctors of actually doing this. Now, they may run excess tests and marginally helpful treatments (a combination of defensive medicine and profit-maximizing), but the tests and treatments are not designed to cause ’sickness.’ Thus, we don’t go to the doctor fearing that he is trying to gouge us out of every dollar while putting our lives at risk (indeed, why would we go if that was the case).

Unless you have a serious, individual accusation that can be backed with evidence of corruption and mishandling of data, stop making the claim. If there was a legal precedent for group libel/slander (is there?), I would encourage the climate change research community to immediately file claims against you and encourage them to seek profit-maximizing behavior in court.