But then they use a double standard. They assume that means are not scarce and need not be rationally economised if science is state-funded, which is why the funds are magically available through government, which need not be concerned about the loss, because it's externalising it onto private parties.

So the advocates of state-funded science have no rational way of demonstrating whether the benefit to society would have been better if the state had not confiscated the funds and spent them on state-funded science in the first place.

* * *

By the way, notice the purely religious methodology of the warmists?

What these people are saying, is that we know we face catastrophic man-made global warming that policy can improve, because “experts” (who all just happen to be government-funded) declare a “consensus”. That’s it. That’s their entire argument in a nutshell. The argument is basically “Who do you think you are to dare to question your betters?” Just a rank appeal to authority – the opposite of science and rationality - and then just endlessly repeating this claim larded with non sequiturs and ad homs.

Notice the same irrational ignoring of the basic physical and economic concept of scarce resources? Policy will just magically produce improvements at no significant cost: irrational. Government as Our Holy Mother the Church all over again: omniscient, benevolent, all-competent, superior, infallible, unquestionable. The only question is one of faith: whether one is a heretic ("denialist").

The whole belief system is just a shameless complete throw-back to the dark ages.

Ask them for a rational demonstration, or how they know, that the means in question will produce better ends than the same means alternatively employed; and they don’t even understand what you’re talking about. As for how they are to know the subjective values of the human beings adversely affected in the scenarios they propose: and that’s the last thing they were concerned about! It's real burning witches stuff. They even have their nutty little holy rituals - curly light globes will save your soul from sin.

Jardine K. Jardine,

Excellent (two) comments. I agree.

However, I do see a need for state funding for basic science research.

Jardine K. Jardine,

I agree with much of your long double-post. Yes, that is the system we have, and no one much looks at it from the inside (government, universities academies, recipients) to wonder whether there might be a better way. It's much the same with Parliament: is this the best way we could govern ourselves? I used to ask questions like that when teaching, and the great majority of students had no idea — they just took it all for granted.

Part of the problem is that the whole budgetary system, everywhere, relies on moving the whole lot on one year. So this year is like last year, and next year will be like this year, with a little tweaking around the edge. The Forward Estimates have a lot to answer for!

One can agree with the Author, inasmuch, as we do need to crack on and develop our best ideas here, if only to insure our best ideas and people, stay and earn all their millions or billions here and for us!
Even if we have to invest some public money in proof of concept pilot projects, and pick winners!
And given CAN'T is the only reason we are forcing all our best ideas and our most gifted people to seek their chances offshore, we need to simply eliminate CAN'T, from any part of this conversation!
And if the Government just can't/won't pick good ideas or winners, then they need to appoint a scientific board who can!
And here I'm not talking about those who specialize inside a single discipline; but rather, those with broad knowledge/future vision!
Rhrosty.

Jardine, Scientists do not declare a "consensus". There is no vote, no emails saying "lets have a consensus". Others (I will leave it to you to find who) review thousands of published papers. They read those papers and simply tally the numbers of papers whose research shows Climate Change (anthropogenic) is probably or most probably affecting what they have observed and analysed. And tally those other papers that have alternate views: 97% to 3%. Climate Change scientists include atmospheric physicists, atmospheric chemists, glaciologists (arctic, antarctic, glaciers), fire scientists, ecologists (of many varieties), oceanographers (deep ocean currents, ocean acidification, species movement, reef experts, and more), solar scientists, permafrost scientists, soil scientist, plant scientists and many more. To lump career scientists in a group called 'warmists' does a great disservice to many if not most who spent decades gaining their knowledge and expertise.

But Tony153, if you don't label all the 97% of climate scientists that disagree with your point of view "warmists" you can't dismiss what they have written as some sort of conspiracy to keep the grant dollars rolling in.

Thankfully, Tony has shown those warmists what for.