Science and advocacy is an interesting topic. As a lawyer, I have witnessed the phenomenon of the "hired gun" very often in a courtroom context. A "neutral," "

Science and advocacy is an interesting topic. As a lawyer, I have witnessed the phenomenon of the "hired gun" very often in a courtroom context. A "neutral," "objective" expert comes to the very conclusion for which he or she is paid and dresses it up with all the right-sounding phrases and data to support the desired conclusion. Does this mean every court expert is a mere hack? No, not at all. There are honest experts. But you have to fight your way through all the others (and there are many of them) to find the occasional expert with sufficient integrity to withstand the temptation to twist results to suit a pre-conceived goal sought by the party paying for the services. Fast forward to private industry scientists. Many of us are quick to disparage scientific statements made by "paid lackeys" of, say, the oil industry. We simply assume that such results are tainted. Why? Because we automatically associate the scientists involved with the party paying the bills and take it as a given that anyone in that role will not be truly objective and will likely be a paid hack. Thus, the environment from which the scientific statements emanate determines for us whether to believe the statements or regard them as tainted. In a private industry context, we have a strong predisposition to assign taint to the outcome. Now, if human nature is such that it can be "bought" in a courtroom context or in a private-industry context, why should it magically transform itself in a public policy context to that of a saintly disposition that has nothing at heart but an intense desire to discover objective truth? This is where the problem arises with global-warming scientists. If results are tainted because someone favoring a particular outcome lavishes rewards on the scientists and then uses their results for a tendentious purpose, why are they not similarly tainted in a public policy context? Consider that the science of global-warming has assumed the role of a reigning orthodoxy (what else do you call something that has taken on the status by which its proponents insist that it is beyond the pale even to question its correctness?). Consider further that it is being used to justify the potential imposition of taxes and payment transfers running into the trillions of dollars, thus serving to enlarge the powers of governments exponentially from levels previously known and accepted in free societies. Consider finally that it is serving as the basis to justify potential government intervention and control in the most minute details of what used to be considered every citizen's private life (the size of our cars, how many times we flush the toilet, whether we use this or that substance for this or that purpose). Even a casual glance at this situation suggests that massive "vested interests" lie behind the science of global warming. This is not even to mention that, as a reigning orthodoxy, it has set up an environment where all the rewards and perks for a scientist from established institutions exist for those who become proponents of this particular viewpoint and, conversely, all the detriments and penalties lie against those who oppose it. Why, in such a context, would anyone expect the "public interest" scientists to be anything other than mere advocates for a position as opposed to objective seekers of truth. I grew up worshiping at the shrine of reason and the enlightenment and have the utmost respect for what true science represents. But the enlightenment had one huge flaw in its premises, and that is that reason will ultimately triumph over other aspects of human nature that parade variously under the titles of "desires," "appetites," "lusts," etc., i.e., the so-called baser human traits. Sadly, those baser traits do not go away and often affect the results of so-called scientific findings. We immediately recognize this with the paid hacks of a courtroom scenario or with with lackeys associated with a private company. It is time we see that the same factors massively pervade those who are nothing but self-interested proponents of a viewpoint that furthers the massive appetites of governments for power and control over people's lives. Is there such a thing as objective science discovered and delineated by persons of integrity? Absolutely. Is this form of science likely to be found in the midst of a politically-driven movement? Possibly, but highly unlikely. Science and politics are indeed different and mixing the two is far more likely to yield tainted results than objective outcomes. This piece, by the way, reads like an almost bittersweet reflection on how the lofty claims of science have run upon the rocks of sad reality and fallen all too short of their aspirations.