Yes, that's true; I shouldn't have singled out social sciences.
what's with the capitalising of Science like it's some kind of club or organisation?
It's meant to convey the fact that climate scientists basically tell politicians "look, Science says you have to do X, Y, Z or we're doomed". They are claiming that their results are good enough to drive policy choices that have huge consequences, and politicians believe it because it's Science--they see it as the same as if astronomers came to them and said "look, we've calculated that asteroid A is going to hit the Earth unless we do X, Y, and Z; we've checked the numbers every which way and there's no other option." But climate science as a field is simply not accurate enough to justify that.
It discusses the very phenomenon that research grants go to increasingly bigger groups that can be trusted to deliver. And also string theory research itself which did get a ton of grant money during the 1990's even though the results never had impact outside the bubble itself.
Edit, some searching helped me find it: Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics
Also, what's with the capitalising of Science like it's some kind of club or organisation? "Science" is not a proper noun - making it one is facilitating dogma.