There is an interesting set of understandings of how Science ought to be conducted. These are the basis of the psychology and ethics of Science as I have learned it. The seem, to me, to be sorely lacking in what passes for Science in the world of “climate science”.
The two key words are “Mertonian” and “cudos”.
CUDOS is an acronym used to denote principles that should guide good scientific research. According to the CUDOS principles, the scientific ethos should be governed by Communalism, Universalism, Disinterestedness, Originality and Skepticism.
Notice in particular that “Skepticism”…which I’ve bolded… kind of makes being called a skeptic as a derisive term a bit of an indicator that someone is out of touch with how Science is expected to work…
CUDOS is based on the Mertonian norms introduced in 1942 by Robert K. Merton. Merton described “four sets of institutional imperatives [comprising] the ethos of modern science”: “universalism, communism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism.” These four terms could already be arranged to form CUDOS, but “originality” was not part of Merton’s list.
In contemporary academic debate the modified definition outlined below is the most widely used (e.g. Ziman 2000).
Communalism all scientists should have equal access to scientific goods (intellectual property) and there should be a sense of common ownership in order to promote collective collaboration, secrecy is the opposite of this norm.
Well. All those “not sharing data or code” moments from Jones, UEA, et. al. come to mind. Not meeting even the first criteria. I’d also add a wet raspberry at all those pay walled publications…
Universalism all scientists can contribute to science regardless of race, nationality, culture, or gender.
And here I’d add “level of acceptance by the Established Illuminati of the field”. Though perhaps that fits under “culture”. I’m definitely from a different culture then them. That is, amateurs can do Science just fine, thank you very much. Universalism, to be really universal, IMHO, must also extend to those folks not degreed or published in the field.
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
n. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
From the first entry of the first definition of the first listing, it calls out specifically science.
Kind of puts all those “appeal to authority” arguments from the Warmers in perspective as non-Mertonian, doesn’t it?
Back at the original link:
Disinterestedness according to which scientists are supposed to act for the benefit of a common scientific enterprise, rather than for personal gain.
OMG! Given the $Billions being sucked out of granting institutions (often as political patronage via government “guidance”) and given the extremely vocal and very non-disinterested advocacy shouted at our faces, this one is just so “blown” it is beyond description. Hardly any “disinterested” characters at all on the Warmers Bandwagon.
Organized Skepticism Skepticism means that scientific claims must be exposed to critical scrutiny before being accepted.
Well, the only “Organized Skepticism” comes from outside the Church Of Global Warming Dogma and from a very unorganized rabble of folks with essentially no funding. Despite the shouted propaganda claims that Skeptics are funded by “big oil”, the reality is that far more oil money flows to The Warming Cause than ever made it to Skeptics. By and large the Skeptics come from completely non-funded or self-funded areas, or get at most an occasional small grant or two from established granting agencies to their established schools ( Dr. Soon comes to mind). For which they are promptly vilified and attacked.
The funding arena is horridly lopsided toward The Warming Cause and the methods used to keep it that way are strictly Saul Alinsky.
I’d count this as one of THE most strongly violated of the Mertonian Norms by the Warmers.
The Wiki includes a list of “coutnernorms” with a heading saying they might be removed, so I’m quoting them here just to preserve them. To me they are pretty obvious.
As a balance to the Mertonian norms, the following counter-norms are often discussed
Solitariness (secrecy, miserism) is often used to keep findings secret in order to be able to claim patent rights, and in order to ensure primacy when published.
Particularism is the assertion that whilst in theory there are no boundaries to people contributing to the body of knowledge, in practice this is a real issue, particularly when you consider the ratio of researchers in rich countries compared with those in poor countries, but this can be extended to other forms of diversity. In addition, scientists do judge contributions to science by their personal knowledge of the researcher.
Interestedness arises because scientists have genuine interests at stake in the reception of their research. Well received papers can have good prospects for their careers, whereas as conversely, being discredited can undermine the reception of future publications.
Dogmatism because careers are built upon a particular premise (theory) being true which creates a paradox when it comes to asserting scientific explanations.
Also, an interesting, if a bit long, look at the norms in practice and how to extend them to things like Administration is here:
I suspect that the lack of these norms in Administration (and especially in large Grant Bestowing Organizations) is a major problem.
So what’s a person to do? I don’t have a good answer. I do think this needs to be put, directly, into the face of the most vocal on the Warmers side. They ought to be challenged directly on conformance to Mertonian Norms and if they fail, no kudos for lack of CUDOS.
Will it happen? Not likely. Government driven “research” is about social control. Most large “charitable organizations” have been widely parasitised by folks with a Progressive agenda and a desire to push Global Warming for social control purposes (this is evidenced by the specific behaviours of the Agenda 21 folks in pushing for widespread action to take over organs of control, even local government boards, to push The Agenda and it is evidenced by their behaviours). So as long as there is any chance at all that their goal of control can be reached, the push will stay in place and Science and Mertonian Norms be damned.
Only when it is absolutely clear that this is a busted flush and the hunt for the guilty begins will there be a backing off. (Though do be aware that Progressives, Socialists, Communists, etc. never quit. They just hide for a while and try again in different ways and different scales.) So don’t expect The Club Of Rome, Maurice Strong, and others to just quit. They have specifically pushed for a $200 Billion per year take from developed nations to be spread around via their Cronies. You don’t just walk away from that kind of money, science be damned…
There has been a many decades (nearly ‘generational’) effort to shift funding agencies and popular culture toward their goals. It will likely take just as long and just as effective an effort to move things back to a Mertonian world. Given the hundreds of $Billions on their side at the moment, and given the “top cover” they enjoy (see the white wash of Climategate along with other “caught in the cookie jar” moments that get punished with the reward of large new grants… ) it is a very difficult goal to reverse that. Frankly, I suspect a Year Without A Summer and a Dalton Minimum like event is about the only hope.
But I’m not all dismal on it. There is evidence that the Average Joe and Jane are not buying it. Some whole countries have junked the Global Warming mantra ( Australia and Canada look to be well on their way ) while others have never drunk the cool-aid. China, India, and Pakistan are building coal power plants at a tremendous rate, while Russia is eyeball deep in gas and oil production. Yeah, Russia was willing to play along with the show as long as they got buckets of subsidy money, but they are not buying it. So that puts most of Asia in the not buying it column. Along with Canada, Australia, and the US Population being marginal on the whole thing, there is some hope. (South America and Africa just don’t matter much to the global economy, so forgive me if I don’t focus on them much here.)
Mostly it is just the EU, Britain, and the Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-NWO side of the USA elite that are firmly bought in. Average working stiffs not so much. A popular revolution at the ballot box is not out of the question. (My sense of things is that most folks are just waiting to run out the clock on Obama and get someone with an America First attitude swapped in.)
I do have one small idea to add: Perhaps we can get the Mertonian Norms remembered and included in the expectations of any grant money handed out. Simply advocate that those government slush funds like the NSF who hand out $Millions include a stipulation that the recipients follow these norms. At least it might remind them of what Real Science is supposed to be like.
Also, when someone is busy slandering the Skeptics (or worse, calling for their incarceration or death – yeah, it happened) it would be worth point out to them that Skepticism is one of the Mertonian Norms – then, when they don’t know what those are, enlighten them ;-)