Climate Science: Cultural, Organizational & Political Factors

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Climate Science
AI Thread Summary
Progress in climate science has been hindered by a combination of cultural, organizational, and political factors, leading to slower advancements than expected. A significant cultural shift has occurred, moving from a focus on the dialectical relationship between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs, which diminishes the potential for convergence in scientific understanding. Organizationally, the growth of administrative roles in universities and the hierarchical nature of scientific institutions have contributed to a focus on large, ongoing programs rather than conclusive research. The dependence on government funding further complicates the landscape, as political agendas can dictate scientific outcomes rather than allowing research to inform policy. The discussion also touches on the controversial views of Prof. Richard Lindzen, who critiques the influence of politics on climate science, suggesting that scientists may adjust data and theories to align with politically correct narratives. The conversation reflects a broader concern about the integrity of scientific inquiry in the context of climate change debates, questioning whether these discussions truly adhere to scientific principles.
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
555
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Geez Wolram, where did you find that one? Meanwhile be assured that the author, Prof Richard Lindzen will be lynched for his boldness withstanding political correctness.
 
Lindzen had a cameo in the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle
 
I think I will move this to the social sciences forum.
 
Isn't it interesting that Climate Science debate doesn't seem to be Science.
I thought the Enlightenment was the start of the separation of Scientific pursuits of knowledge and the separation of Politics and Religion out of hard Science. Or not.

Anyway, looks like we're in retrograde motion in this discipline/thread.
 
jim mcnamara said:
Isn't it interesting that Climate Science debate doesn't seem to be Science.

Right, I think that Richard Lindzen was a bit premature, exposing the 'motives' for climate scaremongering before reality has proven long enough for everybody to feel that's it's not warming at all. This way it resembles the skeptics oil company bribe myth.

Anyway, we can only hope to learn from it next time that we cannot afford biased science for decision making.
 
Similar to the 2024 thread, here I start the 2025 thread. As always it is getting increasingly difficult to predict, so I will make a list based on other article predictions. You can also leave your prediction here. Here are the predictions of 2024 that did not make it: Peter Shor, David Deutsch and all the rest of the quantum computing community (various sources) Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald and Rafi Bistritzer for magic angle in twisted graphene (various sources) Christoph...
Thread 'My experience as a hostage'
I believe it was the summer of 2001 that I made a trip to Peru for my work. I was a private contractor doing automation engineering and programming for various companies, including Frito Lay. Frito had purchased a snack food plant near Lima, Peru, and sent me down to oversee the upgrades to the systems and the startup. Peru was still suffering the ills of a recent civil war and I knew it was dicey, but the money was too good to pass up. It was a long trip to Lima; about 14 hours of airtime...
Back
Top