Science is dead(finemrespice.com)
finemrespice.com
Science is dead
http://finemrespice.com/node/74
40 comments
It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists. In fact, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone. It doesn't even help the political classes, because they have to waste political capital pursuing this issue rather than the half dozen other things they could worry about. However, it's in the direct benefit of oil companies to convince people that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist. One side has motives and vested interests to lie, the other really does not.
Incidentally...
Consider finally that it is serving as the basis to justify potential government intervention and control in the most minute details of what used to be considered every citizen's private life (the size of our cars, how many times we flush the toilet, whether we use this or that substance for this or that purpose).
Perhaps the largest proposed government intervention does nothing of the kind: it simply addresses the externality of greenhouse gases by submitting them to the same kind of cap-and-trade system we have for sulphur dioxide. Rather than addressing specific regulations for fuel consumption and energy usage, this would simply restrict the amount of greenhouse emissions Americans can produce so that ordinary market forces would apply this pressure as efficiently as possible. If you really object to those kind of regulations, support cap and trade. I honestly see no good rationale for any type of conspiracy theory about scientists being government lackeys for some sort of arbitrary statist takeover of your SUV and toilet.
Incidentally...
Consider finally that it is serving as the basis to justify potential government intervention and control in the most minute details of what used to be considered every citizen's private life (the size of our cars, how many times we flush the toilet, whether we use this or that substance for this or that purpose).
Perhaps the largest proposed government intervention does nothing of the kind: it simply addresses the externality of greenhouse gases by submitting them to the same kind of cap-and-trade system we have for sulphur dioxide. Rather than addressing specific regulations for fuel consumption and energy usage, this would simply restrict the amount of greenhouse emissions Americans can produce so that ordinary market forces would apply this pressure as efficiently as possible. If you really object to those kind of regulations, support cap and trade. I honestly see no good rationale for any type of conspiracy theory about scientists being government lackeys for some sort of arbitrary statist takeover of your SUV and toilet.
No conspiracies involved - just my view of human nature and how it is capable of responding in an entirely spontaneous way to the temptations around it. Others are free to disagree, of course.
I do disagree with you, quite strongly, about the idea that there are no vested interests associated with massive government power. A mere glance at what lobbyists do serves to dispel that assumption in my mind. At heart, this is the very debate that pervades the Federalist Papers at our country's founding - should government power be checked and balanced because, by its very nature, humanity will otherwise have a propensity to want to grasp for never-ending amounts of concentrated power in furtherance of self-interested goals? Again, you can disagree, but I side with the philosophy adopted by the founders on this one. Their major concern: what factions will do with their power. What they called "factions" I am calling "vested interests." Again, not everyone will agree with me on this. But, as I started my point, the topic of science and advocacy is an interesting one - this is my two cents on the question.
I do disagree with you, quite strongly, about the idea that there are no vested interests associated with massive government power. A mere glance at what lobbyists do serves to dispel that assumption in my mind. At heart, this is the very debate that pervades the Federalist Papers at our country's founding - should government power be checked and balanced because, by its very nature, humanity will otherwise have a propensity to want to grasp for never-ending amounts of concentrated power in furtherance of self-interested goals? Again, you can disagree, but I side with the philosophy adopted by the founders on this one. Their major concern: what factions will do with their power. What they called "factions" I am calling "vested interests." Again, not everyone will agree with me on this. But, as I started my point, the topic of science and advocacy is an interesting one - this is my two cents on the question.
Lobbyists usually lobby for something or other--some government regulation to serve as a barrier to entry, some government subsidy of this or tax on that, but usually with some understandable commercial interest involved. I can't conceive of any self-interested goal that's furthered by combating anthropogenic climate change, other than mitigating the effects of it actually happening.
Allow me to assist. How do you think the environmental lobbyists propose that we combat APG? Does 'switch to renewable energy sources' sound familiar, or 'reducing emissions'? Does 'taxing carbon emissions' or 'carbon trading' sound familiar? All of these proposed changes have real economic impact, and they create winners and losers in the marketplace.
If the government subsidizes solar or wind power and penalizes coal, who wins and who loses? The companies who make turbines and solar plants are, generally speaking, not the same companies who make and operate coal plants (or coal mines, for that matter).
I think its quite safe to say that money is driving both sides of this argument.
If the government subsidizes solar or wind power and penalizes coal, who wins and who loses? The companies who make turbines and solar plants are, generally speaking, not the same companies who make and operate coal plants (or coal mines, for that matter).
I think its quite safe to say that money is driving both sides of this argument.
OK. It's been well documented how the oil companies have their hands in the game. Show me the money trail from the solar and wind industry.
I can't conceive of any self-interested goal that's furthered by combating anthropogenic climate change, other than mitigating the effects of it actually happening.
Wow. Really? It's not that hard. When billions of dollars move around, there's always a destination. The beneficiaries are:
1. Unproductive countries that sell carbon credits to productive countries.
2. Financial firms that skim the transaction.
3. Politicians, who move one (well, many) steps closer to the longstanding goal of controlling the means of production and distribution.
Wow. Really? It's not that hard. When billions of dollars move around, there's always a destination. The beneficiaries are:
1. Unproductive countries that sell carbon credits to productive countries.
2. Financial firms that skim the transaction.
3. Politicians, who move one (well, many) steps closer to the longstanding goal of controlling the means of production and distribution.
Where do you people get this idea that politicians secretly want to implement socialism ("controlling the means of production and distribution")? What evidence do you have for this? If financial firms and "unproductive countries" have so much of a comparable vested interest, why don't they do as the oil companies do and actually invest in political advocacy on "their side"?
Carbon trading was invented by Kenneth Lay of Enron. That should give you a pointer into what self interests lie for which groups? There is massive amounts of money to be made in the carbon trading arena : yet another type of derivative contract in which you'll have to pay a percentage for in order to buy/sell carbon credits.
While I think internalising the externality is a fine idea in terms of controlling it, if co2 is so evil and so dangerous, why are we not talking of a finite ban, like DDT or Fluorocarbons?
While I think internalising the externality is a fine idea in terms of controlling it, if co2 is so evil and so dangerous, why are we not talking of a finite ban, like DDT or Fluorocarbons?
No one is saying CO2 is "evil", just that there are limits to how much we can safely emit into the atmosphere.
Incidentally, "carbon trading was invented by Ken Lay" is a classic logical fallacy. It's no better than saying "assembly lines were implemented in the auto industry by Henry Ford, a notorious anti-Semite who was decorated by Adolf Hitler and personally refused to assist in the war effort". Ford's evils don't invalidate the fact that cars are affordable, and Lay's evils don't invalidate the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Incidentally, "carbon trading was invented by Ken Lay" is a classic logical fallacy. It's no better than saying "assembly lines were implemented in the auto industry by Henry Ford, a notorious anti-Semite who was decorated by Adolf Hitler and personally refused to assist in the war effort". Ford's evils don't invalidate the fact that cars are affordable, and Lay's evils don't invalidate the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
"carbon trading was invented by Ken Lay"
I've looked into it and you're correct on this (both accuracy and logical fallacy usage). You won't hear this from me ever again.
Also on the 'evil' statement - poor choice of words. I was referring to the EPA declaration of Co2.
I've looked into it and you're correct on this (both accuracy and logical fallacy usage). You won't hear this from me ever again.
Also on the 'evil' statement - poor choice of words. I was referring to the EPA declaration of Co2.
It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that sex outside of marriage is bad unless it really is is bad. In fact, it's a huge hedonic loss for everyone. It doesn't even help the political classes, because as rich high status men, they are prevented from having the extramarital sex which comes easily to them (or at least they must hide it). However, it's in the direct benefit of perverts and sex freaks to convince people that extramarital sex is harmless. One side has motives and vested interests to lie, the other really does not.
If your logic is valid but mine is not, please explain to me why.
If your logic is valid but mine is not, please explain to me why.
Your argument is invalid because there are practically no scientists (social or otherwise) coming out against premarital sex in modern societies with adequate screening against STDs and responsible use of contraception.
Honestly, sex outside of marriage probably was bad in the medieval society where the Roman Catholic Church pushed that doctrine on all of us. It wasn't until the invention of reliable birth control in the 20th century that it wasn't a bad idea, but religious doctrines tend not to keep up with the times as well (hence modern day Muslims and Jews eschewing entire categories of food because they couldn't be trusted to be healthy in ancient Israel).
Interestingly enough, the RCC hasn't managed to buy off enough scientists to fabricate much evidence that condoms and the pill are a bum deal. I guess to some Catholics though, all the scientists who publish studies saying that the pill is 99% effective and condoms can stop the spread of HIV are secretly agents of godless secular humanism.
While I'm sure some environmentalist devotions rise (sink?) to the level of unexamined religious belief, most of them push silly pseudoscientific hypotheses ("Gaia") which do not, in fact, actually get much scientific literature to support them.
Honestly, sex outside of marriage probably was bad in the medieval society where the Roman Catholic Church pushed that doctrine on all of us. It wasn't until the invention of reliable birth control in the 20th century that it wasn't a bad idea, but religious doctrines tend not to keep up with the times as well (hence modern day Muslims and Jews eschewing entire categories of food because they couldn't be trusted to be healthy in ancient Israel).
Interestingly enough, the RCC hasn't managed to buy off enough scientists to fabricate much evidence that condoms and the pill are a bum deal. I guess to some Catholics though, all the scientists who publish studies saying that the pill is 99% effective and condoms can stop the spread of HIV are secretly agents of godless secular humanism.
While I'm sure some environmentalist devotions rise (sink?) to the level of unexamined religious belief, most of them push silly pseudoscientific hypotheses ("Gaia") which do not, in fact, actually get much scientific literature to support them.
Phil, you didn't make an argument about scientists. You made a blanket statement about everyone, and singled out the political classes.
It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists. In fact, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone...It doesn't even help the political classes...
Incidentally, scientific communities have gotten behind theories with little evidence for political or religious purposes: Lysenkoism and various eugenic theories, for example.
It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists. In fact, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone...It doesn't even help the political classes...
Incidentally, scientific communities have gotten behind theories with little evidence for political or religious purposes: Lysenkoism and various eugenic theories, for example.
The topic under discussion is "social pressure on scientists to fabricate evidence towards some sort of ulterior motive". Perhaps I should have explicitly restated that, but I assumed the way our respective comments are threaded implied it well enough.
Your argument explicitly mentions "anyone" and "political classes"; in no way does it single out scientists. It's a very general argument which, based on context, I assumed you were specializing to scientists.
If you wish to claim it is true for scientists, but not people in general, you'll need to explain what special features of scientists make the argument true for them.
In any case, there is direct benefit to climate scientists to exaggerate the dangers/probabilities of climate change: it raises the importance of their field and by extension themselves. Exaggerated fears of global warming benefit climate scientists, just as exaggerated fears of the next great depression benefited Nouriel Roubini.
If you wish to claim it is true for scientists, but not people in general, you'll need to explain what special features of scientists make the argument true for them.
In any case, there is direct benefit to climate scientists to exaggerate the dangers/probabilities of climate change: it raises the importance of their field and by extension themselves. Exaggerated fears of global warming benefit climate scientists, just as exaggerated fears of the next great depression benefited Nouriel Roubini.
I was responding to the vague claim that statists, who have an interest in increasing the power of the federal government, are exerting influence on climate scientists to fraudulently manufacture a rationale for a presumably wide-ranging and invasive intervention in the economy. My argument is that it's very hard to identify any sufficiently powerful group with any identifiably vested interest in fraudulent climate science other than the petroleum, automotive, and energy industries.
Actually, it's not the slightest bit hard:
> Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870393940457456...
There is no rational way one can claim that dramatizing your findings doesn't increase your exposure and make you more likely to get grants, and there's no rational way to claim that scientists don't really, really want grants. There's also no reason to believe scientists/policy promoters aren't just as passionate about their goals as Exxon executives are about theirs.
And, no, scientists' chief goals are not the clear and unvarnished pursuit of truth. Scientists are people who want to be recognized for the amazing truths they've uncovered. If, after 30 years, you find that the evidence of your research does not support any significant insights into public policy, then a scientist, like any other person, will feel that their life has been wasted. Worse still is when the expectation has been set up, by 30 years of press and publicity, that their studies did matter and were of the most urgent importance. Losing that would be almost impossible to endure. And there's zero reason to believe scientists are able to endure this more than anyone else.
(It would be amazing if scientists had the ability to say "Hey, this path didn't lead anywhere, but I contributed to our understanding of the world by cutting off these possibilities". Sadly, scientists are human just like the rest of us. Science is the worst way to apprehend the world, except for all the others.)
Remember, no one is claiming that climate scientists are in a conspiracy to trick people into thinking there is global warming when they don't think there really is. That is a pure straw man by pro-AGW folks. What many people do feel is that numerous factors, including the natural vanity, zeal, and self-importance of the small community of climate scientists, are causing them to overstate their findings.
> Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870393940457456...
There is no rational way one can claim that dramatizing your findings doesn't increase your exposure and make you more likely to get grants, and there's no rational way to claim that scientists don't really, really want grants. There's also no reason to believe scientists/policy promoters aren't just as passionate about their goals as Exxon executives are about theirs.
And, no, scientists' chief goals are not the clear and unvarnished pursuit of truth. Scientists are people who want to be recognized for the amazing truths they've uncovered. If, after 30 years, you find that the evidence of your research does not support any significant insights into public policy, then a scientist, like any other person, will feel that their life has been wasted. Worse still is when the expectation has been set up, by 30 years of press and publicity, that their studies did matter and were of the most urgent importance. Losing that would be almost impossible to endure. And there's zero reason to believe scientists are able to endure this more than anyone else.
(It would be amazing if scientists had the ability to say "Hey, this path didn't lead anywhere, but I contributed to our understanding of the world by cutting off these possibilities". Sadly, scientists are human just like the rest of us. Science is the worst way to apprehend the world, except for all the others.)
Remember, no one is claiming that climate scientists are in a conspiracy to trick people into thinking there is global warming when they don't think there really is. That is a pure straw man by pro-AGW folks. What many people do feel is that numerous factors, including the natural vanity, zeal, and self-importance of the small community of climate scientists, are causing them to overstate their findings.
Fine, let's test that hypothesis: climate scientists overstate their findings. If climate scientists overstate their findings, we would expect them to, among other things, overestimate the rate of glacial melting. But in fact, most of the findings (the IPCC findings in particular) underestimate the rate of glacial melting. Hmm....
It's very hard to identify any sufficiently powerful group with any identifiable profit motive for fraudulent sex research either.
People sometimes push an agenda for irrational ideological reasons rather than simply profit.
Incidentally, bad sex research was fairly common. Homosexuality used to be classified as a disease, for example.
People sometimes push an agenda for irrational ideological reasons rather than simply profit.
Incidentally, bad sex research was fairly common. Homosexuality used to be classified as a disease, for example.
Infectious disease.
When you base an initial argument on a false statement it becomes meaningless.
When you base an initial argument on a false statement it becomes meaningless.
I almost became an academic, so let me address the first half.
> "It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists."
Young associate professors have four years to make tenure. It's easier to get funding and get published if you espouse a cause. It makes your work seem 'important' to reviewers.
Scientists have a significant (10-20%) probability of getting invested in an ideology in the process of seeking tenure.
I agree with the second half.
> "It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists."
Young associate professors have four years to make tenure. It's easier to get funding and get published if you espouse a cause. It makes your work seem 'important' to reviewers.
Scientists have a significant (10-20%) probability of getting invested in an ideology in the process of seeking tenure.
I agree with the second half.
This was a rambling waste of time--why is this drivel getting up-voted? There are many branches of science and many practitioners. Peer review is not dead or some secret cabal, it does improve papers and help weed out some bad papers. As near as I can tell the posting is by another global warming denier dressed up in fancy gibberish--quoting Crichton is a strong hint in this direction.
Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
No. Consensus is invoked when science becomes a political issue. This is because politicians and their voters do not have the time or the inclination to examine data. Instead, the battle is a political one where the playing field is about who has more authority.
In political issues (evolution, global warming) politicians (and scientists that are political) try to use the authority of science, not the science itself.
No. Consensus is invoked when science becomes a political issue. This is because politicians and their voters do not have the time or the inclination to examine data. Instead, the battle is a political one where the playing field is about who has more authority.
In political issues (evolution, global warming) politicians (and scientists that are political) try to use the authority of science, not the science itself.
What a disjoint, rambling mess. If this is the quality of thinking that concludes that science is dead, then I think I'm going to continue to put my money on science.
It is not often that one finds a particular discourse shot through with the sort of threads, intertwined silver filaments, that touch at once on so many personal interests and gather so many errant thoughts into a larger whole that the emotional aftermath is best characterized as the shock of a sort of theoretical unification.
What?
What?
Perhaps someone modified SCIgen for political opinion pieces? http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
Riiight. I'm sure you went into that article with an open mind. Let me guess, you think the CRU leak didn't reveal much of interest?
Instead of ad hominem, how about you refute the main and specific points brought up. I'm pretty sure Paul Graham even has an essay on how to argue properly if you're not sure how it's done.
PS - And if you want an article that uses a less self-indulgent style, read Michael Crichton's referenced speech. You'll be hard pressed to call it a rambling mess. Somehow I'm guessing, though, that you're actually biased against the claim, not its purported "messiness".
Instead of ad hominem, how about you refute the main and specific points brought up. I'm pretty sure Paul Graham even has an essay on how to argue properly if you're not sure how it's done.
PS - And if you want an article that uses a less self-indulgent style, read Michael Crichton's referenced speech. You'll be hard pressed to call it a rambling mess. Somehow I'm guessing, though, that you're actually biased against the claim, not its purported "messiness".
[deleted]
Arguments like this one, trying to make the point of a decline in morality, rigor, intelligence or what ever, tend to use the post WWII world as a point of reference. I recently watched a Noam Chomsky documentary, http://video.google.com/videosearch?oe=utf-8&rls=org.moz..., in which when discussing the history of social activism he made the point that the post WWII era up to the 60's was anomalous and that we are now settling back to business as usual. It is may be that this is true of many other activities.
If we look at Victorian Era science it was rife theories and notions that were scientifically somewhat mainstream, Phrenology, Spiritualism, ..., that we now consider pseudoscience. It is possible that some of the points raised in this article may be contemporary manifestation of what will in time become pseudoscience.
I think it more likely that we are seeing th normal state of science not the decline.
If we look at Victorian Era science it was rife theories and notions that were scientifically somewhat mainstream, Phrenology, Spiritualism, ..., that we now consider pseudoscience. It is possible that some of the points raised in this article may be contemporary manifestation of what will in time become pseudoscience.
I think it more likely that we are seeing th normal state of science not the decline.
I really like this quote:
If you needed any more reason to believe that the traditional model of science and peer review, a system closely guarded from the tyranny of outsiders and their unending and infernal questions, is dead you might simply indulge in the realization that obfuscation is simply the last fig-leaf these institutions have left to cling to and reflect on the fact that in the 240 hours following the leak more pure knowledge and analysis was made available to the public than in the 24 years prior.
In general I haven't been too interested in the drama that has been going on in relation to the "Warmergate" thing, but I do like that there is a renewed interest in the actual data involved and integrity of the science.
If you needed any more reason to believe that the traditional model of science and peer review, a system closely guarded from the tyranny of outsiders and their unending and infernal questions, is dead you might simply indulge in the realization that obfuscation is simply the last fig-leaf these institutions have left to cling to and reflect on the fact that in the 240 hours following the leak more pure knowledge and analysis was made available to the public than in the 24 years prior.
In general I haven't been too interested in the drama that has been going on in relation to the "Warmergate" thing, but I do like that there is a renewed interest in the actual data involved and integrity of the science.
Separation of science and state!
This article was such a rambling mess. I read the whole thing but learned nearly nothing from it except that Crichton didn't believe in anthropogenic global warming.
I find it ridiculous that people are quick to claim "science is dead" because a few scientists, being human, err or embarrass themselves, or because society as a whole may be having an anti-science backlash.
None of that has anything to do with science's value, and so long as science is valuable and some people are able to understand it, it won't die (barring a severe and sudden loss of knowledge by humanity as a whole).
Also, scientific consensus is meaningful. It'd be superfluous to say "scientific consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles from the earth", because that's basically a measured fact. On the other hand, that the species formed by natural selection is a scientific consensus, and a valid one. 99+% of those who have reviewed the debate have concluded that it's the best explanation there is, and that there are no good reasons for rejecting it.
None of that has anything to do with science's value, and so long as science is valuable and some people are able to understand it, it won't die (barring a severe and sudden loss of knowledge by humanity as a whole).
Also, scientific consensus is meaningful. It'd be superfluous to say "scientific consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles from the earth", because that's basically a measured fact. On the other hand, that the species formed by natural selection is a scientific consensus, and a valid one. 99+% of those who have reviewed the debate have concluded that it's the best explanation there is, and that there are no good reasons for rejecting it.
I'd like to add that scientific consensus is often a consensus of evidence, not a consensus of opinion as it so often is in politics.
Excellent point.
However, people sometimes misuse the phrase "scientific consensus". For example, on the near-death experience, it's often said that "scientific consensus" is that the NDE is a biochemical phenomenon. Wrong. There is no scientific or medical consensus on that issue.
The discrepancy regarding "scientific consensus" is much like that surrounding word "theory" in science, which has a precise meaning different from the colloquial definition. "Theory of Universal Graviation" and "Theory of Evolution" involve a much stronger definition of this word than "conspiracy theory". Evolution isn't "just a theory", in the colloquial sense of "theory"; it's an extremely well-supported probable explanation.
However, people sometimes misuse the phrase "scientific consensus". For example, on the near-death experience, it's often said that "scientific consensus" is that the NDE is a biochemical phenomenon. Wrong. There is no scientific or medical consensus on that issue.
The discrepancy regarding "scientific consensus" is much like that surrounding word "theory" in science, which has a precise meaning different from the colloquial definition. "Theory of Universal Graviation" and "Theory of Evolution" involve a much stronger definition of this word than "conspiracy theory". Evolution isn't "just a theory", in the colloquial sense of "theory"; it's an extremely well-supported probable explanation.
Science is dead. Long live science!
As a lawyer, I have witnessed the phenomenon of the "hired gun" very often in a courtroom context. A "neutral," "objective" expert comes to the very conclusion for which he or she is paid and dresses it up with all the right-sounding phrases and data to support the desired conclusion. Does this mean every court expert is a mere hack? No, not at all. There are honest experts. But you have to fight your way through all the others (and there are many of them) to find the occasional expert with sufficient integrity to withstand the temptation to twist results to suit a pre-conceived goal sought by the party paying for the services.
Fast forward to private industry scientists. Many of us are quick to disparage scientific statements made by "paid lackeys" of, say, the oil industry. We simply assume that such results are tainted. Why? Because we automatically associate the scientists involved with the party paying the bills and take it as a given that anyone in that role will not be truly objective and will likely be a paid hack. Thus, the environment from which the scientific statements emanate determines for us whether to believe the statements or regard them as tainted. In a private industry context, we have a strong predisposition to assign taint to the outcome.
Now, if human nature is such that it can be "bought" in a courtroom context or in a private-industry context, why should it magically transform itself in a public policy context to that of a saintly disposition that has nothing at heart but an intense desire to discover objective truth? This is where the problem arises with global-warming scientists. If results are tainted because someone favoring a particular outcome lavishes rewards on the scientists and then uses their results for a tendentious purpose, why are they not similarly tainted in a public policy context?
Consider that the science of global-warming has assumed the role of a reigning orthodoxy (what else do you call something that has taken on the status by which its proponents insist that it is beyond the pale even to question its correctness?). Consider further that it is being used to justify the potential imposition of taxes and payment transfers running into the trillions of dollars, thus serving to enlarge the powers of governments exponentially from levels previously known and accepted in free societies. Consider finally that it is serving as the basis to justify potential government intervention and control in the most minute details of what used to be considered every citizen's private life (the size of our cars, how many times we flush the toilet, whether we use this or that substance for this or that purpose).
Even a casual glance at this situation suggests that massive "vested interests" lie behind the science of global warming. This is not even to mention that, as a reigning orthodoxy, it has set up an environment where all the rewards and perks for a scientist from established institutions exist for those who become proponents of this particular viewpoint and, conversely, all the detriments and penalties lie against those who oppose it.
Why, in such a context, would anyone expect the "public interest" scientists to be anything other than mere advocates for a position as opposed to objective seekers of truth.
I grew up worshiping at the shrine of reason and the enlightenment and have the utmost respect for what true science represents. But the enlightenment had one huge flaw in its premises, and that is that reason will ultimately triumph over other aspects of human nature that parade variously under the titles of "desires," "appetites," "lusts," etc., i.e., the so-called baser human traits. Sadly, those baser traits do not go away and often affect the results of so-called scientific findings. We immediately recognize this with the paid hacks of a courtroom scenario or with with lackeys associated with a private company. It is time we see that the same factors massively pervade those who are nothing but self-interested proponents of a viewpoint that furthers the massive appetites of governments for power and control over people's lives.
Is there such a thing as objective science discovered and delineated by persons of integrity? Absolutely. Is this form of science likely to be found in the midst of a politically-driven movement? Possibly, but highly unlikely. Science and politics are indeed different and mixing the two is far more likely to yield tainted results than objective outcomes.
This piece, by the way, reads like an almost bittersweet reflection on how the lofty claims of science have run upon the rocks of sad reality and fallen all too short of their aspirations.