Just finished training a number of comporate managers on strategy and have another book deadline coming up, so I don't have a lot of time to post, but the global warming question has generated so many thoughtful responses (recently from Steven D. and James B.) that I thought I would see if we can take the question back to issues of strategy, which after all, is the purpose of this blog.
My original post was about the climate and then philosophy behind global warming. The discussion then \had more to do with the philosophy of faith than the philosophy of science. Michael Crichton's article was more on climate, that is, about how fads take hold in the media.
It occurs, following the traditional order of classical strategic analysis, that we must also consider ground. I ask the question: does the physical location and economic basis of science have anything to do with the appeal of global warming faith in the scientific community?
As James point out in his post, this has debate, as many scientific debates in the past, has become extremely political. Does this have anything to do with the politics of today's university campuses? Has conformity to a political norm or, perhaps worse, blind faith in a political viewpoint influenced the opinions of scientists? Are there examples of scientists being persecuted for having held viewpoints contrary to the established norm of academic world regarding global warming? I suspect that there are, given my diagnosis of the nature of the beast, but I do not have the time to research. If my view is correct, there will be no examples of people being persecuted for believing in global warming. This is what those familitar with science, call a testable hypothesis.
Even more interesting to me, are the economics. Michael Crichton touched on this in his article. Science is largely funded by grants. "Scare" science is very effective at generating grant money. Could the popularity of global warming be driven by the fact that it is financially beneficial for the people involved? Again, I donâ€™t have time to do the research, but I suspect that there is a vast amount of money going to research projects involved in collecting supporting evidence for global warming, and comparatively few project found worthy that test theories (such as general warming of the sun) that go against the global warming "concensus."