Saturday, 11 December 2021
The dog in the night-time
"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
Arthur Conan Doyle – The Adventure of Silver Blaze (1892)
There are equally curious incidents whenever the official climate narrative is preached. Silent dogs in the climate night tell us there are gaps in the narrative. For example, there is no such thing as climate science and there are no climate scientists.
The subject misleadingly called climate science is a patchwork of many specialisms. There is no one scientist who understands why and how the global climate changes in the medium to long term. It’s a gap in the narrative so it isn’t mentioned and the incurious don’t see it.
This dog leads to others with even less inclination to bark. Why is the climate narrative almost always presented by journalists, politicians and celebrities? How did Greta Thunberg ever become a climate guru? Why is the credibility question not raised every time she makes a speech? Even Dr Watson would spot that one.
To expand - why is it okay for the climate narrative to be presented and promoted by people who do not even pretend to be experts? Prince Charles for example. Virtually any politician for example. People sitting on the M25 for example. A whole pack of dogs which aren’t barking at all – not even the occasional yap. Another gap in the narrative.
Who is the climate equivalent of Einstein? Where is the equivalent of E=mc2? Where is the equation or the infallible mathematical model supposedly linking global temperatures to atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
Surely, however complex it may be, a simplified representation of the equation or the model would have be depicted on many millions of T-shirts by now. A name would do. The Alfred E Neuman Equation for example, but there is no name. Yet again the incurious don’t notice the silent dog in the night.
The real problem we have is with the incurious.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I suspect that Climate Change suffers from the same problems that Epidemiology first faced.
Epidemiology - "the study of the distribution and determinants of health-related states or events in specified populations, and the application of this study to the control of health problems". Science is (broadly) the detection and explanation of observed regularities and generally follows a single cause -> single effect model. But epidemiology works to a different model of many causes -> many effects, and draws out commonalities at a population level.
The commonalities are much harder to 'prove' than single cause and effect regularities. Look how long it took to show how tobacco smoking was generally bad for you, or how leaded petrol was generally bad for you. Had all smokers contracted lung cancer within 5 years or starting to smoke the 'simple' link between smoking and cancer would have been a slam dunk and interested parties couldn't have delayed things.
Climate science is similar in that there are many causes and many effects, and many of the unconvinced or inconvenienced can find some wiggle room to argue. Similarly Climate Science has been pushed by activists, and that in itself fosters resistance.
My best guess is that Climate Science will eventually be resolved by analysis of Big Data (just like epidemiological investigation of other complex subjects).
There is a role, I guess, for non-specialist moral entrepreneurs: creative and energetic individuals who can see something significant that the scientists or specialists haven't. They often spot an overlooked ethical dimension, such as when slavery was abolished.
The difficulty is in discerning those who have spotted something significant, as opposed to those who just want kudos. But, as you rightly say, just look at those who drive the consensus. Actors, musicians, politicians, and other publicity-seekers; biologists who graduated in 1948; students types trying out new ideas for their shock value; and mentally disabled children. It's not looking promising, is it?
In answer to your own question "why is it okay for the climate narrative to be presented and promoted by people who do not even pretend to be experts?" You list the scientific amateurs Charles Windsor, St Greta Thunderbird and sundry others but you forgot to include 'bloggers and their commentators'. As for the correctness or otherwise of the current 'Climate Science Consensus' I can confidently predict that it will be resolved by more climate science.
Well spotted Mr. Haart. I had just assumed that such a scientist existed. Sometimes the glaringly obvious is missed by looking too closely. For example, I have been trying to find the quote which goes something like this, "who wouldn't change the way they live if they believed that the earth was being destroyed by their actions?". I saw this years ago, the speaker was someone like Adolf Hitler or Joe Stalin, in other words a paragon of virtue. Perhaps that was where the current situation originated.
I too have questioned the certainties put forward by the rather strange young Swedish girl and all who support her and the others. My main concern is the damage they are going to do if their policies are enacted. As I am 84 I will not see the worst of them but have no desire for any of my surviving relatives to experience life at a lower level than I had as a child growing up during and immediately after WW 2.
The supposition that the Earth is being heated up by the increased concentration of carbon dioxide, is just that - a guess. The 'meme' has grown to such an extent, propelled by politics in the main, that its refutation by real observation is now totally ineffective in the public consciousness.
Anonymous? I'm Tammly!
To be incurious in 2021/22 is to fall down a manhole in front of us.
DJ - it isn't easy to see how climate science could be resurrected from the huge political and financial investments which rely on the current narrative having the status of doctrine rather than theory. It has been pushed too far and too hard.
Sam - it's not looking promising. Investment in the official narrative has been so wildly excessive that somehow it may have to continue even if obvious global cooling occurs. There appears to be no good fallback position.
Vatsmith - I can confidently predict that too. It's the sustainable career approach.
Andy - I think many of us will be happy to change the way we live because we'll be nudged into it step by step bu governments advised by psychologists.
John - I feel much the same. Won't affect me unduly but I don't want my grandkids to inherit the hopeless lunacy we see now.
Tammly - I think the guess was not so much a guess, but an opportunity to blame the developed world and particularly its consumers. Supposedly in pursuit of global equality, but effectively in pursuit of a kind of global feudalism.
James - but it is amazing how incurious people are.
Post a Comment