I think the nature of the problem is a bit different. Anthropogenic climate change is sort of generally accepted, though the specifics on how the climate will change are not well understood
If the scientist is somehow vested in climate change being as horrendous as possible - then I would imagine a person like that would become myopic to information that ran counter to their "interests". I wouldn't see them as impartial. (For instance if they made regular paid appearances on TV to expound on the dangers of climate change)
But in the same vein, Dawkins will be myopic to arguments counter to evolution - which I think is fine - b/c that's not contested ground
Triathalons aren't some constrained thing like evolution - where triatheletes all live to 100 unlike the rest of the plebs. So it's more like the effects of climate change. I'm sure it's having some effect.. but your career depends on it being "good" things
All researchers have biases and some results are sexier and one gravitates to them - but here the researcher is really out on the fringe with her conflicts of interest
If the scientist is somehow vested in climate change being as horrendous as possible - then I would imagine a person like that would become myopic to information that ran counter to their "interests". I wouldn't see them as impartial. (For instance if they made regular paid appearances on TV to expound on the dangers of climate change)
But in the same vein, Dawkins will be myopic to arguments counter to evolution - which I think is fine - b/c that's not contested ground
Triathalons aren't some constrained thing like evolution - where triatheletes all live to 100 unlike the rest of the plebs. So it's more like the effects of climate change. I'm sure it's having some effect.. but your career depends on it being "good" things
All researchers have biases and some results are sexier and one gravitates to them - but here the researcher is really out on the fringe with her conflicts of interest