When did economics become more important than science?

Energy companies take advantage of middle class"Over the past 30 years, income in the typical American household has stagnated.  In that same time period, the average household in America has seen its home energy costs nearly triple from $800 per year to $2,025 per year.  To make matters worse, in 1978, an average household would spend $225 a year on fuel for transportation but by 2008, it increase to almost $3,000.  With no increase in real wages, this increase has eaten over $2,000 out of the annual buying power of a middle-class household."

Were anyone to write this as a column, I would expect to see a significant backlash from people knowledgeable about finance and energy.  They would not only point out that the costs have not been adjusted for inflation, but that automobile use has increased significantly.  This lack of understanding would deservedly earn the author disrespect and ridicule.

Yet, over the past couple of months, the press has written several articles covering the release of the latest IPCC report focusing on a "pause" in global warming.  This selective reading of recent weather patterns has distorted the overall understanding of the report, which increased the certainty that climate change is human-caused and will produce significant damage to our quality of life if left unchecked.  If someone writes about air temperature increases, but does not account for the ocean temperature increases or ice melt that occurred coincidently, they should receive the same public scolding as someone who writes about cost increases, but does not account for inflation.  Selectively choosing a weather timeframe that starts with an anomaly year, then claiming that horizon accounts for climate should have as little respect as picking a time horizon that makes an economic argument look stronger.  This is especially true given that fifteen year time horizons do not provide any information about changes in climate, which looks at trends over a longer term.

The release of the latest IPCC had major communication issues, and the editors' decision to amend the report to address concerns about "the pause" made matters worse.  That said, the report - without any qualification - shows that temperatures have increased and continue to do so.  It shows that we continue to collect and trap heat at rates not previously seen in human existence.  The report also reaffirms that these increases in heat collection and storage do not have a natural cause, but a human-caused one.

Science welcomes vigorous discussion and challenges to commonly held beliefs, but selectively choosing data to suit a political agenda should have the same recourse in scientific discussions that it does in economic.  The fact that is has not, to date, shows an increasing disrespect for the area of our lives on which all others are built.  That has to change if we are to survive.