One of the best explanations of the passion behind climate orthodoxy is that believers
see it as a noble cause. As with so many other noble causes, veracity is less important
than inspirational myths and narratives and far less important than a pervading
sense of righteousness. The tragedy of the human condition is that veracity itself
is not particularly inspirational.
There are number of righteous causes in the orthodox climate
narrative. They seem to be a loose and generally left-wing amalgam of egalitarian politics,
anti-capitalism, environmental angst and a deep and abiding desire to get out
from under the thumb of the rich – and maybe screw them into the bargain.
There
is a strong Malthusian element too. Too many people is an important but often
covert subtext – possibly the most important of all. Yet oddly enough another important factor is the fashionable need to
be caring.
So not so noble, but noble causes rarely are.
Okay I’ve left a tinge of sarcasm in there, but the noble
cause is a pretty good explanation for the irrationally passionate behaviour we
see from climate orthodoxy. To begin with it tells us why a protracted period without warming has yet to derail the cause. The cause is noble – it does not have to
make sense.
That’s the useful idiots explained.
Another key aspect we need to explain is the corruption at
the core of climate science. Why do people assert, albeit covertly, that
climate scientists have built climate models with predictive skill extending over
a number of decades.
Weather forecasts 5 days. Climate forecasts 30 years.
The assertion is so ludicrous, so wildly inappropriate for
anyone purporting to be sane, let alone a scientist, so obviously false, so ridiculously
exaggerated, so.... So why is it sitting there at the core of all climate
catastrophe claims?
Because the cause is felt to be incorruptibly noble?
I think that’s it. There is serious mismatch between the science and the reporting of it, but that probably isn’t the emotional driver for most believers. The noble cause is a good explanation because it is a
common explanation. It fits. It is what people have done throughout recorded history -
they have subscribed to noble causes.
Noble causes have been the bane of human society for
thousands of years. From religious wars to pogroms and persecutions, from wars
of conquest to racial subjugation to religious subjugation, to every kind of
mass oppression, much of our history is the dismal history of noble causes.
The causes may seem far from noble to our cynical eyes, but
that’s how they were sold, how they attracted and held their acolytes, how they
silenced sceptics, how they justified burning and butchering
dissenters. A history of ends justifying means over and over and over again.
So what comes next? Noble causes don’t simply evaporate
because they are not noble and certainly not because they fail to respect the
rules of veracity. Veracity doesn’t count for anything if the cause is felt to
be noble – that’s putting means before ends.
So the cause marches on.
So the cause marches on.
4 comments:
"My science, right or wrong."
Perhaps Alfred P Doolittle might be the exception that proves the rule.
Not just climate either, AKH - all PC is a 'noble cause' the left see as righteous.
Sackers - yes, among other things it's one consequence of a fragmented science.
Demetrius - he could, although I think there are quite a few outside the cause.
James - they do, it's what keeps it afloat.
Post a Comment