I Was Worried about Climate Change. Now I worry about Climate Scientists.

This explanation of confirmation bias agrees with how I already understood it, so I've got very high confidence in it.

Fighting for improved science practices in politicized fields like climate science is thankless, but very important. Thank you Sabine.

Exactly. The funding is given for a specific result not science.

As they used to say on Wall Street in the '80s, if you squeeze the numbers hard enough you can make them scream anything.

I think one issue with climate science is there is a cult following of fanatics and politicians using it for political agendas that don't really have anything to do with climate. My PhD is in physics, like Sabine, but I used to follow climate science research as a hobby and interest. I made the mistake of pointing out an error in the conclusion of a published paper a few years back and was personally attacked as a "climate denier" and even had people calling my university and workplace trying to get me fired. That sort of hostility towards scrutiny and questioning of results is certain to corrupt and taint the field entirely. EDIT: I didn't realize this comment would resonate with so many people! To those that immediately attacked me in the comments, thank you for proving my point. CONTEXT ON THE ERROR: Many of you asked for this so here you go. This was 2004-2005. A student sent me a NY Times article claiming "scientists prove CO2 drives climate change". The article cited a paper that looked at the statisitical correlation between global average temperature and global CO2 atmospheric concentration, claiming that climate skeptics say they are completely uncorrelated. The paper did a fine job showing that they are highly correlated (although their data had CO2 lagging changes in temperature). No where in the body of the paper did they discuss mechanisms or causation. However, in the conclusion of the paper they added a single sentence "Therefore CO2 must be the driving factor behind climate change". Regardless of the truth of this statement, it was not supported or examined by this paper in any capacity. That is also the only sentence that was reported on by the media. This was the entirety of my interaction with this article that drove other students (and non-students) to harrass me and others at my university over my presence. No claims or opinions on whether it was true or not, or about climate science in general. SImply that from a basic scientific peer review basis, that sentence was not supported by that body of work.

The best thing about this century thus far has been how much the vastness of humanity has proven how easily propagandized, manipulated, and controlled we've been.

I minored in statistics in three separate academic disciplines and worked in study design, data collection, statistical analysis, and predictive modeling for 15+ years. Confirmation bias starts before you collect data, even before asking the question. Bias starts in the very perception of the senses, language use, and meanings assigned to experience. Imagine I want to study how a forest works, but I am a deer. Someone else wants to study the same forest, but he is an owl, and so forth...Too many scientists are stuck in their narrow fields and have no training in experimental psychology, psycholinguistics, or human perception.

It's almost like people being super invested in certain outcomes is counterproductive to doing objective science.

As a (retired) systematic reviewer, I can tell you that reviewers commonly select sub-groups of the evidence base to include in their synthesis, based on essentially subjective criteria. In plain English that means 'I don't like these papers (for some reason or other I won't go into), so they don't count.' It's called selection bias and it's rampant. So more power to you Sabine for selecting a very plausible sub-group (worst-case scenario).

As a mathematician, I know very little about climate science. But your explanation about the utility of models and confirmation bias in academia are spot on! Keep it up Sabine.

Sabine please make a video like this for Archaeologists... I actually heard one of them say, "I'm the gatekeeper to what is acceptable archaeological evidence and theory.. I very rudely informed her that reality doesn't work that way. Reality is what it is and YOU have to accept it. You do it in such a polite and reasoned way. They really need to hear from you.

The wikipedia "state approved" banner on this video proves you are on the right track.

This problem of statistical models producing an undesired result, then being ran again and again with slight variations until the desired outcome is achieved can’t be understated. I was a data analyst for an energy evaluator. All the evaluators were doing that. We worked together on many highly paid projects. The outcome was more important than ethics every single time. I left the industry. But over the last several years, I’ve realized that this problem has permeated everything. I shoulda stayed. I liked the work. We live in a world where ethics, principles and morality are made difficult to maintain.

Everyone needs to take a Statistics course. Then you’ll realize how incredibly easy it is to play with “results!”

Climate scientists, political activists, politicians, there are certain people that profit off of the fear of people. In politics, especially the media, everything needs to be polarizing, shocking, catastrophic. We are human and we are motivated by emotion. I would like a world where people would be critical, analytic, calm about politics. But it seems like this is where we are at right now. Overreaction against ignorance.

There should be no topic or issue affecting humanity that is too sacred for free and open discussion. The scientific method and peer review process must be protected and encouraged to thrive.

Science as a whole is suffering from this kind of "rumination bias". And we have gone from data crunchers to storytellers that look for data to craft a narrative.

I work with financial models and we see extreme confirmation bias, of the sort that ends in financial crises like the 2008 housing crash. I just assumed it was greed, and that “real science” didn’t suffer from this kind of problem. Sounds like I was totally wrong.

A perfect example of using experience in your own field to understand what's going on in another! Well done Sabine!

I've heard a similar phenomenon happened with the charge of the electron. Millikan got it a little high, and later scientists didn't want to get a "wrong" answer.