The article gives an overview of complexities of the science, along with a history of the research and political controversy. It's one of those articles where I'm saying:
"Yes!... Great point... Well said... Yes again... wait...WTF?"
At almost the end, after taking lots of people to task for ignoring or denying the problem, he turns his attention to us scientists:
"Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank."
Kerry boy, I was with ya right up until the end. I'm not exactly sure what this blanket statement is supposed to mean.
Is he talking about academic scientists? Probably not - he's already skewered those scientists on the left and right who would warp scientific facts to further their agenda, and he states "A very small number of climate scientists adopted dogmatic positions and in so doing lost credibility among the vast majority who remained committed to an unbiased search for answers."
I'm not sure why he threw this in: is our reputation for good science supposed to improve if more conservatives start taking jobs in academia?
He must be talking about the university faculty as a whole? Anecdotally, I'll agree that I've seen some of this, but not to the extent suggested by right-wing pundits. And the well-documented part is exagerated too. Yeah, most surveys show there's more Democratic faculty than Republican, but there's a sizable number of us independents who'd like to think we're exactly that. It's a bit ironic that a researcher who is so critical of people not taking the time to understand complex systems seems to do the same thing himself in that one part.
But it's still a good article.
