Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
Posted on October 26, 2020 by curryja
by Judith Curry
“I’m reaching out to scientists this week about the election. How do you feel about it? Which of the candidates has the best plan, for you, in science and technology?”
The above question was emailed to me today by a reporter.
My response:
I am not happy with either the Democratic or Republican plans for science in the U.S. Both sides seem to want to use and misuse science as a club to further their political agendas. The Republicans seem to prefer to ignore science, while the Democrats cherry pick science to further their political agendas.
Here is the long response,some text from something that I’m working on:
Dutch regulatory lawyer Lucas Bergkamp summarizes the challenge in this way. Science has become an instrument used by politicians and agencies to arm themselves with powerful arguments in complex value-laden debates. Scientists have let the politicians hijack the scientific enterprise. Both policy makers and scientists exploit scientific uncertainty to avoid debate on the relation between science and politics, facts and values. Armed with science, politicians are able to avoid accountability for decisions. Serious debate is avoided because politicized science has purged doubt and skepticism. Activist climate science makes use of a series of strategies and tactics to influence public opinion and politics. Bergkamp concludes that climate science itself has come under siege.
Scientization of policy is a response to intractable political conflicts that transforms the political issues into scientific ones. The rationale for scientization is the belief that science can act as a neutral arbiter of policy — if we could only determine the facts of a matter, the appropriate course of action would become clear. The problem is that science is neither neutral nor capable of answering political questions. The answers that science gives depend on what questions are asked, which inevitably involves value judgments. Science is not designed to answer questions about how the world ought to be, which is the work of politics.
Policy makers are culpable in the misuse of science for policy making by:
- regarding science as a vehicle to avoid ‘hot potato’ policy issues
- expecting black-and-white answers to complex problems
- demanding scientific arguments for their desired policies
- using scientific facts as a substitute for matters of public concern.
Scientists are culpable in the misuse of science for policy making by:
- naivete about expecting scientific evidence to drive policy
- conflating evidence with expert judgment
- playing power politics with their expertise
- combining expert knowledge with values that entangle disputed facts with identity-defining group commitments.
In political debates, ‘I believe in science’ is a statement generally made by people who don’t understand much about it. They use such statements about science as a way of declaring belief in scientific proposition that is outside their knowledge and understanding. The belief of such individuals in climate change is often more akin to believing in Santa Claus than relating to actual understanding of science.
In the context of the climate change, ‘I believe in science’ uses the overall reputation of science to give authority to the climate change ‘consensus’, shielding it from questioning and skepticism. ‘I believe in science’ is a signifier of social group identity that supports massive government legislation to limit or ban fossil fuels. ‘Belief in science’ makes it appear that disagreement on this solution is equivalent to a rejection of the scientific method and worldview. When exposed to science that challenges their political biases, these same ‘believers’ are quick to claim ‘pseudo-science,’ without considering (or even understanding) the actual evidence or arguments.
On the other side of the climate debate, calls for ‘sound science’ are made that weaponize uncertainty and rigor to make it more difficult to use science in regulatory decision making. Individuals promoting ‘sound science’ work to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. The ‘sound science’ tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: science does not produce absolute certainty but is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence.
Encroachment of values into science is unavoidable. Problems arise when:
- Driven by external pressures or for their own political purposes, scientists ignore data and research paths that would make their political point weaker or undermine their ideological perspective.
- Politicians interfere with the activities of science
- Narrow framing of the scientific problem by policy makers, whereby government funding draws the efforts of scientists towards a narrow range of projects that supports preferred policies.
- Politicians, advocacy groups, journalists and even scientists attempt to intimidate or otherwise silence scientists whose research is judged to interfere with their policy preferences.
The war on science is being fought on two fronts: politicians ignoring science; and using bad science to justify a political agenda.
In 2005, science journalist Chris Mooney published a best-selling book, The Republican War on Science, which examines the politics of science policy in the U.S. The book focuses on the behavior of the U.S. Republican party, particularly the administration of President George W. Bush. The book argues that the Bush administration regularly distorted and/or suppressed scientific research to further its own political aims.
Science journalist John Tierney provides a different perspective from Mooney’s, again with reference to U.S. politics. He correctly states that both sides cherry-pick research and misrepresent evidence to support their agendas, and that stupidity and dishonesty are bipartisan. He also argues that Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science, asking “where are the victims?”
Tierney regards the real dangers to science to come from the political Left. The first threat from the Left is confirmation bias, since academics have traditionally leaned left politically. The second threat from the Left is its long tradition of mixing science and politics. Leftists have much more confidence in experts and the state, leading to temptations to politicize science. By contrast, Conservatives are concerned by what Friedrich Hayek called the ‘fatal conceit:’ the delusion that experts are wise enough to redesign society. Conservatives distrust central planners, preferring to protect individuals’ natural rights.
If Mooney’s book is the only evidence that you can provide to support your contention that Republicans ignore science, then you’ve got nothing.
The book was your standard left wing boiler plate that claims that anytime the a Republican disagrees with a left wing scientist, that it’s the Republican that is wrong.
Things like not funding the research into fetal stem cells. The left totally ignores the rights moral concerns and just declares that anyone who doesn’t support them is “ignoring” science.
As I told my liberal friends in the 1990s and 2000s, fetal stem cells were not where the future lay anyway. Getting adults’ own cells to grow into different tissue was the Holy Grail.
Adult stem cells are also where all the progress has been made. Nobody’s been able to figure out a way to control fetal stem cells.
Beyond that, Bush never banned research into fetal stem cells, that was also just another lie the left told.
Bush banned federal dollars towards the development of NEW fetal stem cell lines.
Lines that existed at the time of the ban could still be funded.
State and private spending was never touched.
Yup.
Another fake issue.
My Question is, “ what science are Republicans ignoring?” Republicans as far as I can tell are pro nuclear, pro fossil fuel, pro hydro, pro anything that science says works.
Solar panels and wind turbines work also, they’re just not yet practical for reliable, grid-scale power.
Jeff,
What has to be improved with wind and solar?
Lnger windmill blades, better conversion sulght to electricity?
How do ‘mprove’ the vast areas of land that are prjected as required?
Geoff S
Regardless of the partisan argument, it seems clear that certain areas of science have been to varying degrees corrupted, press, celebrity scientists and academic administrators taking advantages. The most important factor seems to have been the removing of the authority of science direction from the individual to the group running the funding, often staffed from the scientific community. Certainly some problems need funding, but science in general should be more of an individual search, amounts of collaboration to be decided at lower levels. Simple structural methodology is more likely to be independent of politics. Celebrity scientists who want to run our lives are not scientists, whatever the motivation. Too many cases of “I couldn’t get any funding for it.” I remember when universities first established methodologies to write ‘proper’ grant proposals.
Which describes the vast majority of so-called science reporters and journalists.
The next time someone asks me whether I “believe in science” I will say: “I do. I also believe in engineering and economics. How about you?”.
I believe that while it is actually possible to transition off using fossil fuels, there simply ain’t enough of other people’s money to do it in 30 years, let alone the 10 or 20 the alarmists claim is necessary. I also believe in history, which shows that no matter how fashionable an idea is, not every country is going to go along with becoming poor, weak and full of unhappy citizens. Some will quickly figure out they become richer and stronger just by letting the rest of the world beggar themselves.
Brilliant and irrefutable.
Judith Curry’s piece is all talk…. That careful dances around anything controversial.
It is all connected. Climate science is based on stupid dead theories, that should have been killed decades ago…. still exist because of ‘Politics’.
Why is our ‘science’ stuck? Curry is stuck analyzing and discussing a dead problem/a dead theory….
The current ‘standard’ temperature vs CO2 paradigm…. Is physically and conceptually incorrect.
Math cannot fix ‘science’ that is incorrect conceptually. There is a super interesting scientific problem that can be solved/has been solved by the observations……
And it is fact that is super strong, super financed, super deep state, and University support for CAGW. You know the time for science is over…. hence a Professor can and do get fired for not agreeing with the dead theory.
Weird that the imposed brainless ‘solution’ to CAGW, destroys countries. Odd that China jails environmentalists. No CAGW problem in China.
And I think the US university system has been corrupted by China and CAWG is a China win/ US lose scenario/game plan.
https://apnews.com/article/us-news-china-russia-d3c3002e667c4f6c2359e3de820a7997
According to early findings in the report, most of the 12 schools have had financial dealings with Huawei, the Chinese tech giant that some U.S. officials say is a threat to national security, and at least one had ties directly to the Chinese Communist Party. Others had deals with the Russian government and institutions in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The report did not identify which universities were connected to those entities. Since coming under federal scrutiny, the 12 schools disclosed a combined $6.5 billion in foreign funding that was previously unreported, the department said.
The dirty secret in Climate ‘Science’ is the earth’s temperature changes abruptly and cyclically and we do not have a physical explanation as to what is changing cyclically to cause the cyclic abrupt cooling, such as the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event 13,900 years ago…
The YD abrupt cooling event happened when solar summer insolation at 65N was maximum. There are other YD like abrupt cooling events in the paleo climate record.
The earth geomagnetic field also changes, same periodicity, and there are massive regions on the surface of the planet that have reversed magnetic polarity …. That is a subject for a science thread. One that has real observations. Curry’s piece has no observations/facts.
Odd that Google searches will not ‘find’ anything about what China is currently ‘doing’ in the US.
FBI opens new Chinese investigation every 10 hours
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/17/fbi-opens-new-chinese-investigation-every-10-hours/
By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Thursday, September 17, 2020
The FBI is opening a new counterintelligence probe of Chinese-linked threats “every 10 hours,” bureau Director Christopher Wray told Congress on Thursday, underscoring the threat Beijing poses to U.S. interests.
The proper role of scientists is to advise political leaders, not to make policy.
Scientists are too normally focused to make policy. Political leaders must make decisions based upon many factors. They need to weigh the advice of many counselors, each of whom is focused on a particular subject.
Scientifists are also unaccountable to the public when they give poor advice or their predictions do not come true.
“The Republicans seem to prefer to ignore science, while the Democrats cherry pick science to further their political agendas.”
Many have jumped on that line, particularly where she said “Republicans prefer to ignore science”.
“Climate science” HAS become political.
Read that poorly worded statement in context
Mann, Algore, AOC, etc. are worthy to be ignored.
Free “a scientific hypothesis” to be wrong or right (Freedom to learn more using the scientific method.) without the political connotations.
The Judith Curry essay is an unintended example of what is wrong with science, even though she is a scientist and should have known better: She states her personal opinion, backed by no data, no numbers, and no specific quotes from people knowledgeable about the subject. No one who disagreed with the article before publication was allowed to read it, and offer contradictory comments. The only important “science” Ms. Curry left out was a wild guess prediction of the future of science.
This essay is about as useful as wild guess computer games used to predict our planet’s climate in 100 years — called “science” only because the government bureaucrats involved have science degrees. So what? I have a BS science degree — made me better at detecting BS … and the claim to be able to predict the future climate is BS … and that’s why this excellent website exists.
The primary difference between Democrats and Republican is that Democrats believe everything they hear from “deep state” Democrats in the government, especially bad news predictions, which they love … while Republicans don’t trust government bureaucrats, especially bad news predictions, which they view as fake crises, used by leftists to scare people, and control them. Real science itself is never politicized. People with science degrees who are politicized, are not real scientists — they are “junk science specialists”.
“Real science itself is never politicized. People with science degrees who are politicized, are not real scientists”
If you are refereeing to Judith Curry, a bit to harsh.
Has a genuine scientist who pushes against “political science” politicized?
Gunga Dim
I refer to Curry’s very generic essay on science, not the person.
I find her to be a “lukewarmer”, which I view as is anti-science, on her website.
Lukewarmers compromise: They are smart enough to not believe the planet is in danger from an existential climate change crisis.
… but too dumb to reach the correct answer: We don’t know what the climate will be like in 100 years … and it is unlikely that ONE variable, man made CO2, would be the “climate controller”.
It can take great wisdom to say “We don’t know”.
Ms. Curry has a Ph.D. but apparently not the wisdom to say the computer games and 100 year climate predictions are wild guess speculation. People with Ph.D.s must think saying “I don’t know” or “We don’t know” is not something an “expert” should ever say.
On the other hand, Ms. Curry allowed my comment criticizing her essay to be posted on her website. Being skeptical of other scientists’ claims, and accepting skepticism from others about your own work, is an important characteristic of a real scientist.
Trump unknowingly used correct science when he cancelled the Paris participation.
Trump knowingly or unknowingly used furure good science when he quoted a doctor’s success with HCQ and Azithromycin and Zinc.
IF IF the Democrats were actually interested in REAL science they would have backed the Republicans in testing that treatment. However, the media, demos and Falsely promptly attacked Trump and as a result they blame Trump for over 200,000 deaths when they should be charged with criminal negligence.
That TDS has spread to Canada where they are reluctant to use a very economical treatment which works when given early and in the correct dose.
Trump – 2
Demos – 0
A shut out.
So there is my view on science.
The more I learn about climate “science”, the more convinced I have become that scientists are not yet equipped to unravel the complexities of long term climate change dynamics. Are best computers are inadequate. Furthermore, we have all witnessed the falsification of scientific evidence to arrive at predetermined conclusions. Thus, Judith is wrong when she claims conservatives ignore climate science. We simply recognize that there is little actual science in this field worthy of our attention.
frederic ohm
I’ve been reading about climate science as a hobby since 1997 and have edited a climate science blog since 2014. Those are my qualifications for saying your comment is brilliant, and reflects great wisdom on the subject.
I could only add that computer models are nothing more than the personal opinions of the people who own and program them. The causes of climate change are not yet known with enough precision to create an accurate climate physics model. Without such a physics model as their foundation, the so called global circulation climate models are nothing more than personal opinions on what causes climate change.
We know that from the consistently wrong over-predictions of warming –predicting much faster warming than actually happens.
The fact that the computer games DO NOT get more accurate with each iteration reflects a serious problem with the methodology. In fact, the models for the next IPCC report are sometimes predicting even MORE global warming.
Accurate predictions are obviously not the primary goal of the computer games. I speculate they are merely scientists’ props in a fictional play — the coming climate change crisis — a high tech way to present personal opinions about climate change, intended to scare people into demanding a more powerful leftist government, that will “save” the planet for their children. But that’s just this long time libertarian talking — I hate wild guess predictions of the fututr, and anything official !
With prediction (simulation) errors that are so consistent, rather than random, it’s obvious there is a pro-warming bias among the people who control and program the computer games.
Where Judith Curry goes badly wrong on “Republicans are ignoring science” is that her belief implicitly makes the assumption that science is infallible and largely correct most of the time. Time and again through history “consensus science” on many issues that touch on society have proven not just wrong, but badly wrong. The consensus belief was actually negative knowledge is so many cases. Making it hard to steer a new policy course when the consensus is failing as the normal point of rejection.
Negative knowledge (and negative learning) in science is having an understanding that is wrong about nature. Such that when the truth is revealed it is dis-believed and rejected constantly and becomes harder to adopt than from a naive position. This is a key reason why young Einsteins constantly overturn long-held paradigms over their older mentors, the entrenched consensus of the field’s elders are laden with reputations to protect and decades of negative learning to undo first. Not knowing bad habits and ideas help shed bad ideas.
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
“.
– movie: The Big Short, 2015.
Republicans ignoring wrong climate science is likely a good thing. It means flawed climate-environmental laws and regulations are never adopted. It means the “good intentions” attempts of Liberals to help solve the Left Coast’s homeless-transient problems only just make the situation worse. So many areas of public policy are made much worse with negative learning and false knowledge.
Joel O’Flyin’
I liked your comment, and just wanted to add this original quote that seemed to be the source for the line in the movie:
“It ain’t so much the things that people don’t know that makes trouble in this world, as it is the things that people know that ain’t so. — Mark Twain.
I’m happy for GOP to ignore ‘the science’ … it’s mostly rubbish by press release.
I take away a different line from the piece.
“Scientists have let the politicians hijack the scientific enterprise.”
I think the actual problem is that there are many politicians posing as scientists.
Hard sciences should NOT be bought and paid for by any political party.
Good hard sciences demonstrates (with observations and measurements) what is, regardless of political persuasion. With hard science, any scientific theory either aligns with observations and measurements or it is dismiss to the trash-can of also rans.
The ‘theoretical sciences’ and ‘soft sciences’ are merely groups, of supposedly accredited academic people, with suppositions that constrain their theories and field of study but do not necessarily have to fit with observations or measurements. As such the ‘theoretical sciences’ and ‘soft sciences’ can be, and often are, highly politicized.
‘Climate science’ appears to want to be a ‘hard science’ while acting with all the unaccountable theoretical nature of a ‘soft science’.
That answer won’t do. The reporter wants a sound-bite, not a detailed, considered, discussion.
Nice dead thread banging, nitwit, though it allows you to post your drivel unmolested.
The use of the word “believe” defines the statement as religious in nature, whatever the context. Science is a system of doubt, and the word “believe” has no place in a scientific statement. Science is a system of doubt, and all things in science are subject to doubt, which is why all science changes over time, and why the concept of a consensus among scientists is so foolish.
Religion, on the other hand, contains statements or principles which cannot be doubted (if one is to remain a member of that cult). I attend church on Sundays and join in reciting the Nicene Creed, a summary of our beliefs.
But I teach my students to “QUESTION EVERYTHING”, including me, their professor. And I teach them how to differentiate between science and religion.
Climate catastrophism, by the way, defines itself as a fundamentalist religion. Think about it.
Believe, verb (used without object): to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.
I believe that quantum mechanics has not yet been disproved.
Government “scientists” are little different than the educated clergy of the monarchs who provided the “science” of the king’s right to rule by divine providence. In this fashion the church got to share in the plunder of the peasants and the king got to avoid the messy use of the sword to deprive them of their liberty and property. The government “scientists”, who as a group are at the lower levels of their profession otherwise they would have taken their STEM education and gone to work for more money in the private sector, are more easily convinced to provide only one conclusion, the political one.
First “scientists” must be held to account for THEIR political agenda driven crap, then talk to me about how we should listen to anything they have to say.
” ….. Individuals promoting ‘sound science’ work to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. The ‘sound science’ tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: science does not produce absolute certainty but is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. …..”
==============
I don’t see any wrong in that statement.