We have often discussed the motives of government employed Climate Scientists™ and the biases which sort their views. The blog is called noconsensus after all. However, we have not spent time discussing motives of skeptics – which appropriately have little consensus. One of the main critiques I’ve received is that I have a conservative viewpoint of the world. I don’t hide it but have been advised at least 50 times behind the scenes that I should. Apparently, in our screwed up world, it is ok to be a wrong-thinking leftist because that is “intellectual” but not so for conservatives. The very existence of something as politically tone-deaf as Climate Progress is a perfect example.
My conservative viewpoint is based on a simple understanding that competition and reward creates hard work. Humans are not soft creatures to which everything necessary should be given without consequence. Nothing can be worse for us as a people than to receive everything necessary with ease and this is a huge danger of expanding technology. We are motivated biological creatures who by nature, fight for every advantage we get in life. We are forced by our existence to look for advantage. From better prices to easier jobs and more pay. Our quality of life has continued to expand with the easy money of union type work, that has led society to this poisonous concept of entitlement. Everyone must eat, be housed, be medicated, be controlled and cared for in all ways by the government. This system goes against human nature and leads to economic poverty in all cases in which it has been tried. There is a balance somewhere as to what government should provide but we are WAY over that line nearly everywhere in the world.
In the face of that cold reality of our nature, a scientist must fight to ignore the personally motivating instincts and focus on the aspect which makes humans special among animals. Our ability to reason. A scientist must overcome his/her personal needs in exchange for truth. Again, our nature demands that there will be no consensus of opinion or result on very uncertain things such as the future climate. And scientifically speaking we are faced with far greater uncertainty as to how (or if) we should react to that uncertain future. Besides other lines of evidence, Climategate has shown beyond a doubt that the climate consensus coordinates as a group to speak in unison for their cause. The conflict of interest between personal success vs truth has never been more evident than in Climate Science™. In an unstable feedback between government programs, personal success and the rejection of their less agreeable colleagues, they have become the puppets of the system they have helped to create.
Email #2009 Keith Briffa – on writing zero’th order draft of paleo IPCC AR4 chapter.
I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
The pendulum swings left.
Well, people being people, such a biased and forced structure often creates a polar opposite response. The tone of the papers, the conclusions from poor data, manipulation of data, hiding of bad data and finally the unconditional support from others in the field to their colleagues who perform obviously fraudulent acts.
I have to say, it turns my stomach to even write the f-bomb. We don’t do that here.
However, we live in a gray world. The opposite response to these acts can be 100% as bad as the original act itself. Recently, some of us have beaten multiple versions of backradiation to death at tAV with no admission from the ‘skeptics’ that their argument was worthless and backradiation from the atmosphere is a known proven fact. There is a time to admit your failure, change your mind and move forward. Either that or you push the pendulum of opinion back away from reality and toward something else. I prefer to live in a real world.
Read the rest of this entry »