think the part that is government funded or subsidized is the political part of that industry.

"Gravitational waves are not political unless used for political purposes."
I read all your examples, and I still don't get it. Perhaps there's not enough space in this forum. It sounds like you're saying once scientific inquiry has an immediate outcome that would affect a large industry, it becomes political and then we cannot know anything about it.

Is that what you're saying in the example of carcinogens? So many people would hate to see a promising energy source causing cancer, and a few extremists actually want less energy. You're saying because of that we cannot know whether these chemicals cause cancer and how many more cancers occur due to their presence.

Or are you actually saying it's political if it's gov't funded/subsidized?

Gravitational waves are not political unless used for political purposes. The particular temperature and pressure of an oil well is not political. The identification of a chemical which enables optimal extraction rates of oil is not political. Whether fracking does or doesn't exceed an EPA limit is political. Corporations and government may well collude to achieve certain ends.

Here's my example. If scientist A did research that enabled the building of an atomic bomb and scientist B did further research in order to enable the building of an atomic bomb for the express purpose of providing that technology to a state, then scientist B is doing political work too. See also, Albert Einstein. See also, J. Robert Oppenheimer.

I assume the scientists performing the research are smart enough to know if their own work is political in nature or is not. In the case of the scientists retracting the environmental study, it is not necessarily true that the retraction was political, but clearly it has political consequences. Am I wrong to be skeptical?

Einstein's theory was a theory. To be tested and proven. Carcinogenicity of a fracking chemical is a theory too. But I'm not volunteering to have the test performed on me! Are you? In the case of Einstein's theory, "there are never enough samples", in the case of carcinogenicity, there are never too few.

Comparing Einstein's theory of relativity to the theory of human toxicology is as simplistic as concluding from E=mc2 that "it's all relative".

What about your gravitation wave example has anything to do with politics?

Well, you could have fooled me. I thought you were lending the neo-Luddites credence.

"whose side do you take?"
I am on the side of the rest of humankind that likes a lifestyle that consumes energy. I can't speak for neo-Luddites. I read parts of one of Wendell Berry's and Naomi Klein's book, and I don't get it.

Er...I don't know how to ask this, except--er--straight-out: whose side do you take? How does the neo-Luddite argument make any physical sense? And what am I to do with their flagrant manipulation and even falsification of data? Don't you know the political objective of the neo-Luddites? To ration energy and redistribute wealth to some high-profile "victim countries," with a little left over for the neo-Luddites themselves.

So in this claim, the Luddites have a well-organized and well-funded machine, while the energy industry and the rest of humankind that likes a lifestyle that consumes energy do not.

Except when the overwhelming majority of people in a given discipline all swear allegiance to the same political claque wanting a certain answer and willing to fund any amount, or wreck any career, to get that answer.

This is actually good. It's always tempting to do this. "This is a board with the new part, but it's still failing. I'll run it again, and see if it passes." Science by its nature encourages people to catch the mistakes that result from this type of confirmation bias. We don't give up on science we find a mistake. Finding mistakes is how it's supposed to work.

I am saying environmental science has become a political football. I quote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to the [proxy series]...to hide the decline." And: "We cannot show a warming trend and it is a travesty that we can't." Anyone who stoops to such methods, or uses such language, is no scientist. He is a politician.

"those whose practitioners are not looking for practical solutions--are political"
Are you saying since there are such huge financial interests in fracking and such a strong cultural Luddite movement that we cannot study it scientifically? If so, do we find the fudge factor by weighing the interests of this huge industry and all the people in the world who want to see the global economy grow against the tiny minority that actually wants to see the world produce less? Following that, we'd think it's all a conspiracy to hide the environmental costs of fracking. I don't agree with this political fudge-factor method. We have to study reality with our imperfect human abilities.

"The difference between this paper and Einstein's work is that the truth of Einstein's work was not altered in order to meet a political dictum. "
Are you staying regarding questions that involve politics, i.e. questions whose answers affect a major industry key to the global economy, we cannot know anything? If for some reason a while industry were immediately affected by the existence of gravitational waves, would Einstein first asserting they couldn't exist and then finding he made an error be all about politics?

"differently motivated: "we can't trust anyone."""
I actually agree with them on not trusting anyone. I don't pretend science is separated from the culture of its practitioners. This is why craniometry showed scientific evidence that some races were smarter than others. They wanted it to be true. Today we want it not to be true. So I am skeptical that there is no correlation between intelligence or some other desirable attribute and physical features associated with race.

When it comes to fracking, it's used to extract oil, which runs the global economy. We don't want it to have a hidden environmental cost. So when I hear some findings that it's not as dangerous as we thought, I am aware that there is every incentive to check and double check findings of costs to fracking and less incentive to double-check favorable findings. But I cannot leap from there to a guess that it's actually x times more costly to the environment than studies show when you factor in a fudge factor for politics. I have to go with the imperfect, human-gathered data we have.

"That claim is similar to the post-modernist "we can't know anything" in its outcome, but is differently motivated: "we can't trust anyone.""
That's a good way to look at it.

It reminds me talking to creationists. They say I believe in a religions narrative, and you believe in Darwin. I say, I accept evolution, not believe it's metaphysical truth. And it's not about following Darwin or some sacred figure. Darwin thought evolution was gradual and had a Lamarkian component. They say, that just proves how bankrupt science is: We can't even pick one story and stick to it.

Absolutely correct.

Worldwide, $1.5 Trillion a year.
mostly government money ie yours and mine, some contribution from guilt ridden cronies and the sheep.

Yeah, I know. Its the ambience I think he has in mind. Everyone poor, except the elite. Think of a dusty little village somewhrere to get the picture.

They kinda go hand in hand, the money and the power. The folly is not realized until the money is gone and the power is no longer there as well. Sort of like the lottery winner millionaires who can't stop spending until they are broke again. Or something like that.

Mike, in reference to this comment, please see my reply to you below.

And, by the way, Banana Republics are not republics.

Mike, let's get literal. As Peikoff says, "metaphors cannot give philosophic answers". Chapter 11 is bankruptcy in a financial sense.

Repeated retractions of a theory make said theory less and less likely to be accurate. Not all theories are correct because man is neither omniscient nor infallible. That said, if I loan a scientist money for research, I expect a return. Did Einstein deliver? Yes, he did.

Does fracking cause effects on the environment? Of course it does! That is the point of fracking! The difference between this paper and Einstein's work is that the truth of Einstein's work was not altered in order to meet a political dictum. Yet when scientific work is not only altered for political or bureaucratic work, as is possible per the article you share, but also that the key point of the work is in reference to "limits" defined by an organization that provides its funding through fines (the EPA), then it should become more obvious to you that retraction of this work should be scrutinized.

Wonder if we'll ever see a retraction on global warming. Of course the global warming hoax is a huge big business, so maybe not.