Why climate science is on trial

The biggest case of scientists losing control of the policy process happened when Albert Einstein told Franklin Roosevelt about the possibility of building an atom bomb. Einstein gave the president a piece of scientific data; what was done about that information was entirely up to the political and military authorities. Moreover, as the strategic importance of nuclear physics came clear, much of its work came under government control, with intrusive new procedures like security clearances interfering with the free flow of scientific information. Science had become so important to the national interest (and so expensive to carry on) that scientists lost control of the scientific process.

The science of climate change is, after nuclear physics, maybe the most politically explosive science around. The implications are staggering — potentially, dealing with this information could require the effective global regulation of virtually every form of economic and recreational activity we know. If climate scientists are even half right, they are going to have to get used to intrusive and unrelenting public scrutiny. Their work will be second-guessed and disputed; their financial interests examined with a fine-toothed comb. Hostile critics will go through their emails; every jot and tittle they publish will be closely examined by lynx-eyed skeptics. The debates over the policy implications of global warming will be waged mendaciously, tendentiously and unscrupulously — just like the debates over issues ranging from abortion to stem cell research to animal rights.