I'm reminded of President Eisenhower's warning in his farewell address that science and academia could be captured by a "scientific-technological elite" who are mainly funded by or act at the direction of government. Sounds like we're there...
"hyper-partisanship among science influencers has proven to be extremely rewarding for professional careers" I vote for this as the top reason political polarization has grown among scientists.
Two external factors appear to strongly correlate with politicization:
1. The amount of money spent on it, especially government money; and
2. Proximity to policy.
Climate change has lots of both, each of which increases politicization, and there also is a high interaction effect, making the combination more virulent. The more money and/or policy relevance, the more politicized it becomes. Cutting off the gravy train, ignoring it for settIng policy, or both may be required to restore its scientific integrity.
Lets get down to the Basics, What is the fundamental Green Assumption and is it true.
Does no one realize no green has seen fit to put forth a proof of their basic hypothesis "more CO2 will cause more energy absorption". Perhaps because it is not true?
The NASA data on atmospheric energy transmission/absorption shows that the only area where CO2 can effectively absorb Earth's IR is fully absorbed, ie opaque.
Even Mann is reported to have agreed, but waved it off, saying "there are other wavelengths".
It is extremely likely that Mann has know this since 1992, when an activist Green high in rank in the Goddard Space center buried this NASA data where search engines could not find it.
Roger has made several posts looking at the actual IPCC data
It would be nice if he took on an important project and took on every hair on fire claim (or is that pants on fire) in the latest IPCC Synthesis/summary report and compare it directly to the data in the actual report.
Check out the long-running (10+ years) frivolous and expensive lawsuit by Mann against National Review for publishing a less than flattering statement about him -- in a political magazine which is where politics should be discussed (Foreign Affairs, the Atlantic etc.). Mann was explicit that he was trying to bankrupt National Review. Whether you agree with heirs of Bill Buckley or not, this is how Mann operates. He is well beyond "combatative" as an influencer. His arrogance is breathtaking.
Mann et al. never engage in public debate w those w opposing views. I mean, why not. If “the Science is settled” and all that, then it ought to be a piece of cake to bury opponents w facts and reason. But instead, Mann et al. engage in dirty pool, period. Cancellation of published research e.g.,Alimonti et al.) and ridiculous puerile name-calling. That’s it.
<i>A final hypothesis is that hyper-partisanship among science influencers has proven to be extremely rewarding for professional careers — fame and fortune readily follow. </i>
Not to mention that once politicians enter the field, their influence reaches out to those who determine where government grants go. I get the impression that scientists and university students who'd like financing for their proposed studies are much more likely to hit BINGO! if said studies might reinforce the current 'consensus' that AGW is caused by anthropoi, and would face rejection if not.
The dangerous part of Mann's climate militancy is the anti-democratic nature of it. He is definitely a grifter. Any "scientist" who writes children's books is out to make some (un)serious $$. The fact that Mann is so authoritarian and is demanding the destruction of one major political party makes him simply a hack, driven by motives way beyond his professional research.
As we debate this topic of science and politics we should remember that elite bashing comes awful close to Marxist dogma. It’s what every communist/socialist regime does. Round up the educated ... and ”cancel” them. To my mind the mission is to restore trust in American institutions and the values they are based on. I’m thinking this is among the things THB is trying to do. Trust restoration.
It's not surprising that climate "science" and economics are the most politicized. These are soft sciences where the facts are less certain, so the advocates need to amp up their propaganda.
I'm reminded of President Eisenhower's warning in his farewell address that science and academia could be captured by a "scientific-technological elite" who are mainly funded by or act at the direction of government. Sounds like we're there...
"hyper-partisanship among science influencers has proven to be extremely rewarding for professional careers" I vote for this as the top reason political polarization has grown among scientists.
It’s not obvious to us that Mann is a scientist when he says things like that Sept. quote.
Two external factors appear to strongly correlate with politicization:
1. The amount of money spent on it, especially government money; and
2. Proximity to policy.
Climate change has lots of both, each of which increases politicization, and there also is a high interaction effect, making the combination more virulent. The more money and/or policy relevance, the more politicized it becomes. Cutting off the gravy train, ignoring it for settIng policy, or both may be required to restore its scientific integrity.
Lets get down to the Basics, What is the fundamental Green Assumption and is it true.
Does no one realize no green has seen fit to put forth a proof of their basic hypothesis "more CO2 will cause more energy absorption". Perhaps because it is not true?
The NASA data on atmospheric energy transmission/absorption shows that the only area where CO2 can effectively absorb Earth's IR is fully absorbed, ie opaque.
Even Mann is reported to have agreed, but waved it off, saying "there are other wavelengths".
It is extremely likely that Mann has know this since 1992, when an activist Green high in rank in the Goddard Space center buried this NASA data where search engines could not find it.
Off topic sort of
Roger has made several posts looking at the actual IPCC data
It would be nice if he took on an important project and took on every hair on fire claim (or is that pants on fire) in the latest IPCC Synthesis/summary report and compare it directly to the data in the actual report.
That would be “useful”.
And of course, some light reading on the subject
https://www.yalescientific.org/2015/11/book-review-a-disgrace-to-the-profession/#:~:text=Mark%20Steyn's%20recent%20A%20Disgrace,over%20the%20past%20150%20years.
I can really not understand why anyone listens to Dr. Mann. Obviously he is blinded by dogma in place of facts.
Check out the long-running (10+ years) frivolous and expensive lawsuit by Mann against National Review for publishing a less than flattering statement about him -- in a political magazine which is where politics should be discussed (Foreign Affairs, the Atlantic etc.). Mann was explicit that he was trying to bankrupt National Review. Whether you agree with heirs of Bill Buckley or not, this is how Mann operates. He is well beyond "combatative" as an influencer. His arrogance is breathtaking.
Anything by Piltdown Mann is fraud, starting with “why would I share my data with you as you’ll only try to find problems with it”
Which of course is what science is.
Mann et al. never engage in public debate w those w opposing views. I mean, why not. If “the Science is settled” and all that, then it ought to be a piece of cake to bury opponents w facts and reason. But instead, Mann et al. engage in dirty pool, period. Cancellation of published research e.g.,Alimonti et al.) and ridiculous puerile name-calling. That’s it.
<i>A final hypothesis is that hyper-partisanship among science influencers has proven to be extremely rewarding for professional careers — fame and fortune readily follow. </i>
Not to mention that once politicians enter the field, their influence reaches out to those who determine where government grants go. I get the impression that scientists and university students who'd like financing for their proposed studies are much more likely to hit BINGO! if said studies might reinforce the current 'consensus' that AGW is caused by anthropoi, and would face rejection if not.
The dangerous part of Mann's climate militancy is the anti-democratic nature of it. He is definitely a grifter. Any "scientist" who writes children's books is out to make some (un)serious $$. The fact that Mann is so authoritarian and is demanding the destruction of one major political party makes him simply a hack, driven by motives way beyond his professional research.
Michael Mann, best known as the author/inventor of the hockey stick fraud, is not someone in whom trust should be high.
As we debate this topic of science and politics we should remember that elite bashing comes awful close to Marxist dogma. It’s what every communist/socialist regime does. Round up the educated ... and ”cancel” them. To my mind the mission is to restore trust in American institutions and the values they are based on. I’m thinking this is among the things THB is trying to do. Trust restoration.
It's not surprising that climate "science" and economics are the most politicized. These are soft sciences where the facts are less certain, so the advocates need to amp up their propaganda.