George Bush was often accused of politicizing science. But his differences with the science sector generally involved ethics or policy differences, not hostility to empirical data. If science has been corrupted, the rot has come from within from scientists who blatantly publish ideological advocacy papers or money-driven agenda action items as if they were objective scientific reports.
And here’s an unintended admission of that very point. The New York Times Magazine ran a story a few weeks ago on a global warming skeptic named Freemon Dyson, entitled ” The Civil Heretic .” The current edition’s letters to the editor on the story are all opposed to Dyson’s views, hardly surprising since the Times tends to use the letters to the editor page as a tool for promoting its own views. But one letter stood out in its clear admission that the “science” of global warming is not science as much as politics. From the letter by Monika Kopacz, a Ph.D. candidate in applied mathematics and atmospheric sciences, Harvard University :
It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’—and readers’—attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty. [emphasis added]
Now there’s an admission worth noting! If Kopacz is right, at least some scientists intentionally and sensationally exaggerate their findings to win political points, promote their favored policy outcomes, and get more money for research.
I doubt she meant it this way, but Kopacz’s letter is as pure and succinct an indictment of the ongoing corruption of science as I have lately seen.
