This isn't anything special about science funding. It's what happens whenever any organization receives government money for any reason.

So we waste some money and get some bad science. We also get really good science. Nobody bats a thousand.

That question is an issue no matter who funds it.

I see that Invictus has made much the same point.

So you basically totally agree that state funding causes extreme bias in the reporting of scientific outcomes....and we know that the overwhelming majority of "environmental/global warming" science is funded by the government....

Therefore what does this say about the viability of any conclusion about the climate drawn by government funded scientists? (IPCC, etc.) Let's see if anyone can draw the proper conclusion...as I am so often asked "why would scientists lie about global warming data"?

Krellin are you implying that the state should not fund scientific research?

It's not a matter of lying, it's a matter of incentives. Just like anywhere.

Invictus ... far from "not batting a thousand", if you read the article it suggests that you wil hardly ever get anything near the truth...i.e. far closer to batting zero than batting a thousand. THAT is why it is a critically important issue...and contrary to your suggestion that this is not such big news, consider that your average moronic tax payer/voter has no idea that the science they hear reported which great theatrics and hysterics on the nightly news is, in fact, most likely grossly flawed and exaggerated, if not simply full of outright lies. If a person bases a vote on this 'science" (Oh, I can't vote for Candidate X because he doesn't believe in science Y and will kill us all), don't you think it would be important that the voter have information accurately reported to them?

"Because of the hypothesis of nonbiased equiprobability, this is equivalent to tossing a coin 92 times and coming up with 9 or fewer heads or tails. The probability that this would occur in an unbiased sample can be calculated from the binomial probability distribution, and the result is striking. There would have to be 100,000,000,000,000,000 iterations of the 92 tosses for there to be merely a 50% chance that one realization of 9 or fewer heads or tails would be observed."

spyman -- Did I imply that? I did not imply that at all - I'm simply linking to an article. You are free to draw your own conclusion.

Invictus - Lying...incentives...good lord, are you a politician now? lol If a scinetist is reporting on science and exaggerating the outcomes, this isn't "incentives", this is "lies". Do it in a criminal case and you do time for perjury. Do it before a Congressional committee that is determinging your funding and you get a bigger budget next year.

I did read the article. It's a tautology that researchers have an interest in keeping the grants flowing, and therefore will tend to focus on areas that will do just that. That's why a lot of people in robotics bend over backwards to try and have their research have a military application so that they get Defense grants, for example.

But I think you (and to a certain extent, the article) are just using this argument as a Trojan horse to advance global warming skepticism.

That article had a lot of words, but little content. It basically repeated its premise over and over without giving any actual concrete figures. It pretty much read as an intellectual masturbation session: enjoyable if you already agreed with the premise, but ultimately less enjoyable than a true debate.

There is always the potential for bias in science whether state or privately funded. Scientists are after all human. That is why it is important that findings are repeatable.

There is always the potential for distortion or gross exaggeration especially when scientific research is reduced to a news friendly sound bite for the nightly news.

Is state funded research more vulnerable to distortion than privately funded research. The CATO institute might think so - but let's see if the results can be replicated by actual research.

@krellen, I'm right there with you on AGW. Its complete bullshit. I've argued that stance as much as anyone here. And I completely agree that the politicising of that particular issue has caused scientists to be biased in their findings for the sake of continued funding. But, state-sponsored science has led to way more scientific discoveries than privately funded science and for me the good outweighs the bad. After all, AGW is beginning to be seen as political nonsense in spite of the last 20 years of unfair funding for political purposes. The fact of the matter is that if your predictions don't come true, your theory will be discounted scientifically regardless of what the politicians want it to say for their own purposes.

But what if all that money hadn't been wasted on AGW and had actually gone to better use (some actual space exploration or <*gasp*> reducing the deficit!)

" If a scinetist is reporting on science and exaggerating the outcomes, this isn't "incentives", this is "lies". Do it in a criminal case and you do time for perjury. Do it before a Congressional committee that is determinging your funding and you get a bigger budget next year."

Well, what is a lie anyhow? It seems that in our culture today we call anything that isn't true a lie, when it really could be an honest mistake. Or even just the other side of an ambiguous point of view or controversial interpretation of data. Are these things "lies?"

At any rate, my point was about how the incentives exist through public policy, taxes, regulations, etc. for researchers to behave in a way that keeps money coming. We can't blame them for doing things that all humans do.

"controversial interpretation of data" - Yes, that would be a lie. Nice euphemism.

Abge - agreed, the money quote was in the single paragraph I quoted above. Though the basic premise....go before a Congress to report your findings. If you say your findings indicate your science is not importanta/no longer needed, you lose funding and lose a job -- hence my question as to how YOU would answer a given questions.

That concept -- WHAT do you say about the importance of your own job when before a Federal Government funding committee...is an *incredibly* important question, and I think that while you try to dismiss the premise, it speaks to human behavior. Once the lie is perpetrated the first time, it is easy ton continue...in fact, mandatory to contineu the lie, so as to not come off later as a scientists that lies about his research....and thus you have the perpetual study of a science that may or may not have *any* credibility, simply because of the funding mechanism.

Even Bell Labs, with more Nobel Laureates than trinity college AND the Muslim world combined, owes a lot of its discoveries to government grants, even though it was owned by a corporation (AT&T, then Lucent).

So I say, hell yeah! Keep the money coming for the sale of science, even though some pseudo science is likely to be funded as well.

Haha "the sale of science" ironic Autocorrect, considering the topic. But I meant "the sake of science"

Invictus -- in this case, a lie is consitently reporting that your science research indicates a dire outcome that the *actual* data, analyzed correctly, would not indicate. That is a lie. But...honestly, you want to play a game of semantics, and I'm just not interested in that, not because semantics are not important, but because you first say "Of course science is biased" and then try to suggest there isn't bias or that bias is meaningless. It's irrational/illogical...and I think it is because of the implications of admitting that the AGW science is grossly/fatally bias is difficult for you to admit.

No, it's exactly what it looks like.

Remember when scientists thought they found neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light? Were they lying when they announced that they had data which showed that? Or are the Freakonomics guys lying when they claim abortions have caused the crime rate to go down? It's a pretty good argument but there are also pretty good arguments against it.

An untruth does not equal a lie.

To Draugnar, obviously.

philcore -- sure, funding of science is a great thing. The funding of science by a bunch of lawyers and other ignorant fucks in the governmnet is retarded.

If science is to funded by the government, it ought to be through providing funds first to a non-governmental agency populated by, you know, real scientists, who would then determine where the money goes. Perhaps this happens to some degree already....but I doubt it. The list of shit our government funds is simply to ridiculous for me to believe there is any non-governmental oversite by scientists.

I'm right in the no-human-caused-global-warming camp with you, krellin. I just don't think the argument being made by you here and the article is an especially good one.

@Invictus - Intentionally making a controversial (and knowingly wrong) analysis of the data is lying.

Off to cook grill steak. Carry on! I look forward to reading thoughtful comments later.

Gotta run too. Gotta go spend some hard earned cash grocery shopping. :-)

Intentionally making a controversial statement is not even close to lying. Knowingly wrong, sure.

@krellin

Perhaps the problem isn't so much what the researchers spend their time on as it is that they put all their eggs in one basket.

When I was in grad school, my advisor was working on a variety of discrete by complimentary projects. He also had a mix of government/industry funding. If one of his projects were to have lost funding, it would have sucked, but we would have been fine overall. I think this diversification would help prevent a lot of the problems mentioned here.

So what do you call intentionally making a controversial statement (baring the scientist actually believeing the bullshit he is pedaling)? A lie is in the intent. If the intent is to deceive for monetary gain, it is lying. Now, I'll grant the statement isn't a lie if the scientist believes what he is saying. But unless he truly believes, his motivation is other than science and is, at a minimum, dishonest.