Thursday, 28 November 2024
When science is irrelevant
A few days ago, Richard Lindzen published an American Mind piece on the political movement we know as climate change.
Manufacturing Consensus on Climate Change
How a political movement invented its own scientific basis.
Modern political movements have not infrequently laid claim to being based in science, from immigration restriction and eugenics (in the U.S. after WWI), to antisemitism and race ideology (in Hitler’s Germany), to Communism and Lysenkoism (under Stalin). Each of these falsely invoked a scientific consensus that convinced highly educated citizens, who were nonetheless ignorant of science, to set aside the anxieties associated with their ignorance. Since all scientists supposedly agreed, there was no need for them to understand the science.
Of course, this version of “the science” is the opposite of science itself. Science is a mode of inquiry rather than a source of authority. However, the success that science achieves has earned it a measure of authority in the public’s mind. This is what politicians frequently envy and exploit.
The climate panic fits into this same pattern and, as in all the preceding cases, science is in fact irrelevant. At best, it is a distraction which has led many of us to focus on the numerous misrepresentations of science entailed in what was purely a political movement.
The whole piece is well worth reading as a reminder that the climate change movement is as Lindzen says, a purely political movement. Those who do not understand the science have no great need to understand it, there are many other clues to the nature of the beast -
Of course, the attraction of power is not the only thing motivating politicians. The ability to award trillions of dollars to reorient our energy sector means that there are recipients of these trillions of dollars. These recipients must share just a few percentage points of these trillions of dollars to support the campaigns of these politicians for many election cycles and guarantee the support of these politicians for the policies associated with the reorientation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"highly educated citizens, who were nonetheless ignorant of science,"
I'd phrase that as 'sorely maleducated citizens, being ignorant of science ...". On this C. P. Snow was right.
It's an interesting and very complicated scenario he is describing. Science is supposed to describe reality as it is, uninfluenced by political ideology or any kind of wishful thinking. If it really can do that, then it's hard to see how it can succumb so easily to ideology. It would have the ability to fend off political interference baked in from the outset. If there are people claiming to be scientists who are bogus, then how do they get to be "scientists" in the first place, and how can the lay person tell them apart?
As a lay person with no scientific training, the best I can do is to point out to climate loons that a similar carapace of certainty was claimed by Lysenkoists and racists. I have to rely on the fact that they don't look like genuine thinkers dedicated to objective knowledge. I mean, come on - whatever he is talking about, Miliband doesn't come across as sane.
The sciences are pursued by people who are, some more than others, alert to incentives. Some will be motivated by curiosity and the desire to find truths, others by the fun involved in mastering a technique or solving a problem.
Others will care more about jobs, promotions, research grants, fame, the possibility of political influence, or whatever.
Modern aphorism:
Where there's a panic to be forged there's money to be made.
dearieme - I agree, those sorely maleducated citizens should remedy their education or stick with what they know when they are major decision makers.
Sam - "I have to rely on the fact that they don't look like genuine thinkers dedicated to objective knowledge."
That's a reliable outlook with lots of clues such as Miliband not coming across as sane, together with the soup throwers. Also the degree of political certainty is wildly inappropriate for science this complex. If nothing else, weather forecasting is a very strong indicator of unresolved complexities.
dearieme - and the orthodox climate sciences seem to attract your latter group. Lindzen once said that a significant problem with climate science is that it doesn't attract the best students, they go elsewhere.
DJ - spot on - and the money can be the difference between survival and extinction for any outfit.
Post a Comment