Mark Latham puts a good question.
In the climate change debate, we are witnessing a puzzling shift in the foundations of public reason – the emergence of what might be thought of as anti-enlightenment. It is no longer sufficient for a large majority of scientists to compile the evidential facts of a matter and expect the public to accept them at face value. Other, more powerful influences are at work.
On a point of detail, I am prepared to bet a dollar that a large majority of scientists do not back climate alarmism. Due to the political influences at work we mostly get to hear about the minority who are active alarmists.
But we still need to explore the influences at work which have radically undermined the credibility of the scientific enterprise.
How about Big Government backing Big Science, the explosion of so-called “higher education”, the rise of the Normal Scientist, the downsides of professionalism and specialization in science, destructive fads and fashions in the philosophy of science and the premature burial of the most important philosopher of science in the 20th century.
Most likely Big Government and the politicization and corruption of everything that it touches is the major issue. Look at the governance and modus operandi of the IPCC as a paradigm case of crazy politics driving science.
To be continued.