Congress controls the purse strings and decides where and how research money will be spent. Congressmen and Senators are politicians who make decisions based on what will get them reelected. Politics strings are therefore unalterably attached to government money.

But even ignoring the role of politicians, government funds are inherently corrupting. Once a lab is set up to study problem “X,” the funds will only continue to flow as long as “X” continues to be perceived as a problem. It is in the interests of the researchers, therefore, to bolster such perceptions.

Research funded by industry does not suffer from such problems – research that does not produce practical results gets cancelled. However, industrial research is limited by its very nature. Suppose, for the sake of argument, global warming is truly a serious problem that must be addressed. What incentive does any company have to research the problem and to develop solutions? Conceivably, insurance companies might fill the gap, but there would be a huge free-ridership problem. The fact is that the only companies that have a vested interest in studying global warming are those involved in carbon-based industries, and they want the problem to go away.

Consumer/taxpayers are stuck in the middle. We’re paying for the government research through our taxes, and we’re paying for the carbon industry’s research through higher prices. The first has a vested interest in proving that global warming is a problem, the latter in proving that it is not.

What is our vested interest? What do those of us who are footing the bill want out of all this? Well, if global warming is a problem, we want it fixed, but not at the price of destroying the economy. And we certainly don’t want expensive fixes that will accomplish nothing. On the other hand, if global warming is not a problem, we don’t want scarce resources spent to “solve” it. In short, our interest is best served by knowing the truth.

So what is the best that we can hope for in this battle of special-interest science? The best is that in the give and take between competing interests and competing scientists, the truth (or a good-enough approximation of the truth) is discovered.

The worst that could happen is that the government uses coercion to shut down any research that doesn’t toe the government line. It is in our interest that both sets of research continue, and that through free and open communication, scientists figure out what is going on. In the meantime, we must resist all attempts to declare that “the science is settled,” and to shout down honest questions and dissent.

My ancestor and quasi-namesake, Copernicus, and Galileo determined, then proved, the heliocentric reality of our planetary system. The church had taught for years that the earth was the center of the universe and all – including the sun – revolved around Gaia.

When science conflicted with policy, science be damned, Galileo was actually jailed, and the ideology continued for quite some time.

Now, oh, about 400 years later, the church apologizes to both scientists.

Now don’t get wound up about the church, here folks, for this was the days before America and the church WAS the state. The church is only relevent in this analogy for its place as the center of politics in that era.

The difference is, this time, none of us skeptics is going to jail (…yet, maybe to re-education camps at some point, though…), and information, data, truth flows much more freely and expeditiously in the current era.

Please lay it on your U.S. senators from now until they vote on Wacky Marxism American Carbon Elimination and Serfdom Act. It will do nothing for planetary temperatures, will kill the economy, will tax consumers, redistribute wealth, hurt the world’s poor, and ultimately hurt the environment (see environmental Kuznets curve).

It is one more data point on our hopelessly dysfunctional and dishonest federal government.

According to the press accounts I read, the EPA claimed that it was not Dr. Carlin’s job to review the TSD suggesting that Carlin, in doing the review, was pursuing his own personal agenda. Mr. Peltier’s article implies that Carlin’s actions fell within his job description. Is this correct?

What this situation points out is that there are profound differences between reports issued by scientists, and scientific reports.

Scientific reports employ the elements of scientific methodology — which includes a healthy dose of skepticism.

Kudos for Dr. Carlin for speaking out, and for Robert and others to publicize the politicalization of critical technical areas.