Hi Michael, a good article and thanks. Unfortunately we are still dealing with symptoms rather than causes and effect. No rationalist would have any problem with what you have presented and much, much more in a similar vein.

If I may back up just a little, to assist with context and relevance.

Firstly, Democratic societies need to be very wary of any non-elected bodies with international reach that seek to raise taxes and subsume national sovereignty without representation. Currently we have two such entities, the UN and the EU, both of which fit these criteria.

Secondly, in his 1959 Rede lecture, CP Snow highlighted the fact that the Two Cultures of scientific and humanities studies were failing to communicate. In subsequent essays from 1962 onwards, various authors made it clear that this had escalated into open warfare. The two primary problems identified, and which are getting worse today are the “dumbing down of the educational curriculum” and the “socialization of science”.

It is now abundantly clear that we have a very public and open conflict between those representing scientific conclusions and the socialized perspectives held by those representing humanities

The socialization advocates promote the abandoning of the idea of science as a separate domain of activity and enquiry, they promote that science must be understood not as a means of acquiring objective general truths about the world but simply as another for of social behavior, They further postulate that scientific laws are the product of “consensus” and must be understood in terms of the prejudices, social pressures and power relations that result in the emergence of consensus and not in terms of advances in understanding, in logical consistency or correspondence with external reality.

Now where have we heard all this before?

The socialization of science undermines itself, if scientific discourse has nothing to do with reality, why does streptomycin cure TB and not magic?

Cont’d

Cont’d

There are many other documented perspectives by which to validate the “AGW phenomena”. Armstrong and Green correlated some 26 other public alarm phenomenon, Autopoietic networks in behavioral science also define it, the historical model of the Church of Rome vs. Martin Luther is a precise match, the Entity Relationship Analysis business modeling describes it’s form, USA based structure and cult characteristic research provides a direct cross correlation with methodology and the socialization of science beautifully describes the “how” this is all perpetrated.

It is hard to imagine any more monumental example of the socialization of science than that of AGW. By thrusting one of the most complex scientific debates imaginable into the public domain we have seen the proselityzation of pseudo-science (socialized science) adopted by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of members of the public. So powerful is this adoption of someone else’s opinion that the level of self indoctrination has taken on religious (cult) fervor for many.

The instant science is politicized it is corrupted, hence the expression socialization of science, it is a political construct.

So bringing all this together, we have two candidate entities that have become the primary political sponsors, the EU and the UN. We have form and function as described by entity relationship analysis, we have an historical prior event reference model, we have a behavioral science validation in Autopoietic networks, we have the “rhetoric engine” provided by the cult model, we have the public alarm phenomena by Armstrong/Green and we now have the methodology profile in the dumbing down of the curriculum and the socialization of science.

At a local level the AGW advocacy block comprises, political sponsors, progressive media, vested interest academics and industrial opportunists. Is it any wonder our children and grandchildren have become victims of this abomination?

Curiously, and I haven’t figured this out yet. Why have so many apparently well educated people been drawn into this mess? I’m beginning to think that education and ego are no substitute for intelligence, they are just gullible, dangerous but gullible.

spindoc,

More to the point, it's the "politicisation" of science that has spawned the denialist movement. Notwithstanding that Peter Hume decrees it perfectly acceptable that we imbibe out scientific information from economists (or any old hack blogger, for that matter) rather than from the scientists.
http://theconversation.edu.au/a-journey-into-the-weird-and-wacky-world-of-climate-change-denial-1554

Poirot, I think I coul have written that response for you.

3. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.

13. Attack Independent Thought - Critical thinking is discouraged as prideful and sinful, blind acceptance encouraged

15. Totalism - "Us against them" thinking, Strengthens group identity. Everyone outside of group lumped under one label.

19. It encourages blind acceptance of the orthodoxy and rejection of logic through complex lectures on incomprehensible doctrines.

21. It supports extreme obsessiveness regarding the group orthodoxy, resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.

23. Members exhibit a dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.

29. Need to internalize the group's doctrine as "Truth"

32. No critical questions about the leadership, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate.

33. No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful.

Interesting contribution, Spindoc. Which side are you on again?
Are you a climate scientist, or one of those trying to “socialise” science, i.e. a layman refuting the science simply because you don't find it appealing?
Let me reiterate my earlier point about deniers and libertarians. I would find the deniers' arguments more compelling if they were from the scientific community, and not overwhelmingly from the economic community; IOW, the deniers' first bone of contention is invariably “bugger the science, how much will it cost me?”
Thanks for the link, Poirot; I particularly enjoyed the Max Planck quote:
“a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up,”
I rather think the denialist argument will die when it inevitably becomes clear that burning ever diminishing resources will be far more expensive than using renewable or recyclable resources.

interesting that popnperish, poirot, and grim illustrate the points both Michael Kile and spindoc have made.

Am I a "climate scientist"? Of course not, I have never conspired to manipulate data; never conspired to supress contrary research findings; and never had my hand out for millions of dollars of government grants.

Thus I have no ulterior motive than to point out that every scare the climate industry has run has come to NOTHING, every "tipping point" has come and gone.

And the fact that "climate scientists" now rely on a pathetic teenage fascist with a messiah complex shows how utterly bereft of integrity they are.