An analysis of prominent papers and press releases found a bias towards exaggerating the risks and downplaying the benefits of SRM, but the bias against SRM also works in more subtle ways.
For what it is worth, my article faced peer review that was, in my opinion, hostile. One reviewer was one of the authors of the paper(s) whose communication I critique. After self-identifying by stating his name in the generally anonymous review, he strawmanned the paper and made ad hominem criticism of me. After nine months of back and forth, that journal rejected my paper.
1: scientists believe in policy goals which SRM disagrees with
2: scientists believe it will be widely enacted and if they don't predict bad outcomes they'll be blamed for side effects
3: if scientists find positive outcomes in models, they might be pushed to do or suggest field experiments, which will then get them attacked by fringe political groups and possibly fired (and also sound like quite a bit of work)
A very good question. I think there is a fear that it would undermine emissions cuts (1), I haven't seen anything to suggest the second, and for the third I don't think that applies to individuals, though I think people fear that it would get out of their control and be pushed by others.
I'll gather my thoughts together on why this bias exists and write about it in a future post.
For what it is worth, my article faced peer review that was, in my opinion, hostile. One reviewer was one of the authors of the paper(s) whose communication I critique. After self-identifying by stating his name in the generally anonymous review, he strawmanned the paper and made ad hominem criticism of me. After nine months of back and forth, that journal rejected my paper.
-Jesse Reynolds
why do you think this bias exists?
possibilities I can imagine
1: scientists believe in policy goals which SRM disagrees with
2: scientists believe it will be widely enacted and if they don't predict bad outcomes they'll be blamed for side effects
3: if scientists find positive outcomes in models, they might be pushed to do or suggest field experiments, which will then get them attacked by fringe political groups and possibly fired (and also sound like quite a bit of work)
A very good question. I think there is a fear that it would undermine emissions cuts (1), I haven't seen anything to suggest the second, and for the third I don't think that applies to individuals, though I think people fear that it would get out of their control and be pushed by others.
I'll gather my thoughts together on why this bias exists and write about it in a future post.