The best science money can buy, part 2

As a follow up to this snarky post, Judith Curry has a very thoughtful post on how the current funding model gives us a very incomplete (and a very skewed) scientific output:

What Sunstein and Hastie describe seems very apt in terms of institutional/establishment climate science (e.g. IPCC, AAAS, RS/NAS).  In their drive to develop a consensus around dangerous anthropogenic climate change, establishment climate science has failed to take advantage of knowledge from the broader community of scientists.  More seriously, the process of peer review for funding and journal publication torques research in a particular direction.  Hence there is unfunded and un-proposed research that could provide serious challenges to the orthodoxy of dangerous anthropogenic climate change.  This is not a healthy situation.

This is long and thoughtful, and richly referenced.  It also demolishes the "Science is Settled" argument.

For those following along at home, Judith Curry is Dr. Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.