Matt Ridley: some basic science is not worthy of taxpayer funding

Precisely why the ‘science’ of climate change has been so detrimentally corrupted and sullied in this sorry age of global warming collective madness.

$29 Billion of grants and funding is awarded annually, in the US alone, by warmist bureaucrats to those ‘scientists’ who tow the man-made warning narrative, prefacing their study with an anthropogenic conclusion.

Zero government funding exists for studies on the ‘natural’ variability of climate change.

Ergo, why wouldn’t a budding climate scientist, cow-eyed with ideals of “saving the planet”, preface his or her paper with the ‘Anthropogenic’ conclusion, guaranteeing industry acclaim, funding, a publishing deal and subsequent citations?

Publish or perish as they say. This time at great cost to science and discovery.

Watts Up With That?

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece on Sunday, friend of WUWT Matt Ridley argues that basic science research does not lead to technological innovation, and therefore isn’t deserving of taxpayer funding.

Ridley writes:

“Increasingly, technology is developing the kind of autonomy that hitherto characterized biological entities. The Stanford economist Brian Arthur argues that technology is self-organizing and can, in effect, reproduce and adapt to its environment. … The implications of this new way of seeing technology—as an autonomous, evolving entity that continues to progress whoever is in charge—are startling. People are pawns in a process. We ride rather than drive the innovation wave. Technology will find its inventors, rather than vice versa.

Patents and copyright laws grant too much credit and reward to individuals and imply that technology evolves by jerks. Recall that the original rationale for granting patents was not to reward inventors with monopoly profits but to…

View original post 52 more words