Seattle has a similar situation and has a bike-friendly mayor who's pushed the issue and is likely to lose his upcoming bid for re-election (not solely because of bike issues, but he's known as Mayor McSchwinn and it's one of several things that voters are unhappy about). I lived in Los Angeles in the mid-1970s and bicycled from near Culver City to the UCLA campus in Westwood the entire time. I feel very fortunate to have avoided an accident during that time and had many near-misses. US cities are not set up for bicycles, and making them so is an expensive proposition. (OK, so Boulder is an exception, but they've a lot of money to spend in stuff like this). Yes, bicycling is better for you than sitting on your ass in a car, but spending a lot of scarce tax dollars catering to the biking minority is a very inefficient use of transportation money.
Assuming TFA's numbers are correct, I'd bet that much of the problem is that no agency, be it government or commercial (and particularly commercial) wants to spend it's money seeing if published results are reproducible. Additionally, no one ever won a Noble Prize for excellence in reproducing others' results. Verification of results is key to science, but this is one of several aspects of doing science right that the funding agencies either don't want to, or can't (as in Congress looking over the shoulders of managers at the NSF), pay for. Everyone wants "everything, all the time" without paying for it, and this is the sort of thing that happens when decisions are driven by the money people (who may be scientists, to be fair) and not the people who know what the hell is going on.
Yeah, yeah - code clean, test-test-test, document-document-document, have separate test/run machines that are configured the same, yada yada. This is all well and good, and any halfway-decent developer knows all this. However, software development is not done in a vacuum and each and damn near everything mentioned is involved in cost/time benefit analyses when crunch-time comes (which it always does). With some exceptions, when I see a company that's saddled with horrible old legacy codes that nobody can understand, often a large measure of this is paybacks (for not adequate funding and poor schedule planning) being the bitch that they are. How to do things the best way are well known, it's just that the best way is more expensive (in the short term, which is the only term business understands these days) and takes more time than the average business will wait. If the bottom line is get something done that sorta-kinda works as fast/cheap as possible, you get spaghetti code that even the guy/gal who developed it can't follow.
The Washington State's exchange website, for which the state paid $54 million to Delloite LLC, hasn't been a rollicking success either. I'm trying to wrap my head around why it costs $54 million to set up a pretty straight-forward website (costs evidently do not include hardware, just people/time/software). I believe that cost was over half what the state received from the feds to set up the exchange. Details here (such as they are).
(Sound of pooch being screwed.) This is how real science works, particularly with highly complex issues like the earth's climate. We learn new things as we go along, and when new knowledge means we need to adjust our undestanding, that's what is done. The next update by the IPCC (if it gets funded, that is) may well show that what we learn in the interim indicates that the current estimates of climate change were too small. Unfortunately, the polarization of politics will take this latest IPCC report (if it indeed says what the article states) as an indication that these science types have been lying to us all along and they should now be ignored and driven from the temple. Efforts to deal with the effects of the upcoming changes will be killed off and nothing will be done until it's too late to do much of anything other than hope to cope.
See this take on the problem from Aviation Week:
Pilots are like anyone else, if they lean on a crutch long enough they forget how to walk. Then if the crutch turns out to have a fault, boom!