Chris
09-25-2013, 03:57 PM
This is a fairly scathing article about the rent seeking in climate science. It's a bit complicated, indirect, in that it requires first feeding of alarmists who feed politicians who feed science.
Science in the Public Square
Though valuable as a process, science is always problematic as an institution. ...the gentleman scientist no longer exists. ...the government has essentially a monopoly on such funding.
Expanded funding is eagerly sought, but the expansion of funding inevitably invites rent-seeking by scientists, university administration, and government bureaucracies.
The public square brings its own dynamic into the process of science: most notably, it involves the coupling of science to specific policy issues. This is a crucial element in the climate issue, but comparable examples have existed in other fields, including eugenics and immigration, and Lysenkoism and agronomy.
...science becomes a source of authority rather than a mode of inquiry. The real utility of science stems from the latter; the political utility stems from the former....
http://i.snag.gy/kZ4hr.jpg
The consequences of the Iron Triangle include ascendancy of politically correct mediocrities or incompetents such as T.D. Lysenko, which is inevitable given public inability to judge science. Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status. Advocates grossly exaggerate results in order to promote their cause. An obsessive focus on unimportant or irrelevant aspects of the issue develops. A profound dumbing down of the discussion (including the abdication of logic) interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.
...Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions. How can one escape from the Iron Triangle when it produces flawed science that is immensely influential and is forcing catastrophic public policy?
...Human society, like the climate system, has many degrees of freedom. The previous cases lasted from 20 to 30 years. The global warming issue is approaching 30 years since its American roll-out in 1988 (though the issue did begin earlier). Perhaps such issues have a natural lifetime, and come to an end with whatever degrees of freedom society affords. This is not to diminish the importance of the efforts of some scientists to point out the internal inconsistencies. However, this is a polarized world where people are permitted to believe whatever they wish to believe. The mechanisms whereby such belief structures are altered are not well understood, but the evidence from previous cases offers hope that such peculiar belief structures do collapse.
Indeed, we are currently seeing what may be one such possible route whereby the mutual support illustrated in Figure 1 may be breaking down. The scientific community is clearly becoming less ambiguous in separating views on warming from totally unreasonable fears for both the planet and mankind. Environmental advocates are responding by making increasingly extreme claims. Politicians are recognizing that these claims are implausible, and are backing away from both the issue and support for climate science. The incentive is then for scientists to look elsewhere for support. Regardless of whether this will be sufficient, one can only hope that some path will emerge that will end the present irrational obsession with climate and carbon footprints.
Science in the Public Square
Though valuable as a process, science is always problematic as an institution. ...the gentleman scientist no longer exists. ...the government has essentially a monopoly on such funding.
Expanded funding is eagerly sought, but the expansion of funding inevitably invites rent-seeking by scientists, university administration, and government bureaucracies.
The public square brings its own dynamic into the process of science: most notably, it involves the coupling of science to specific policy issues. This is a crucial element in the climate issue, but comparable examples have existed in other fields, including eugenics and immigration, and Lysenkoism and agronomy.
...science becomes a source of authority rather than a mode of inquiry. The real utility of science stems from the latter; the political utility stems from the former....
http://i.snag.gy/kZ4hr.jpg
The consequences of the Iron Triangle include ascendancy of politically correct mediocrities or incompetents such as T.D. Lysenko, which is inevitable given public inability to judge science. Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status. Advocates grossly exaggerate results in order to promote their cause. An obsessive focus on unimportant or irrelevant aspects of the issue develops. A profound dumbing down of the discussion (including the abdication of logic) interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.
...Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions. How can one escape from the Iron Triangle when it produces flawed science that is immensely influential and is forcing catastrophic public policy?
...Human society, like the climate system, has many degrees of freedom. The previous cases lasted from 20 to 30 years. The global warming issue is approaching 30 years since its American roll-out in 1988 (though the issue did begin earlier). Perhaps such issues have a natural lifetime, and come to an end with whatever degrees of freedom society affords. This is not to diminish the importance of the efforts of some scientists to point out the internal inconsistencies. However, this is a polarized world where people are permitted to believe whatever they wish to believe. The mechanisms whereby such belief structures are altered are not well understood, but the evidence from previous cases offers hope that such peculiar belief structures do collapse.
Indeed, we are currently seeing what may be one such possible route whereby the mutual support illustrated in Figure 1 may be breaking down. The scientific community is clearly becoming less ambiguous in separating views on warming from totally unreasonable fears for both the planet and mankind. Environmental advocates are responding by making increasingly extreme claims. Politicians are recognizing that these claims are implausible, and are backing away from both the issue and support for climate science. The incentive is then for scientists to look elsewhere for support. Regardless of whether this will be sufficient, one can only hope that some path will emerge that will end the present irrational obsession with climate and carbon footprints.