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.

A righteous man

For fifty years he had been persuading himself that he was a righteous man, and the conviction was now so firmly impressed upon his very soul that nothing could ever shake it.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle – The Firm of Girdlestone (1890)

It’s a strange idea, the notion of righteousness. So often we have seen it applied to fictional characters who are emphatically not righteous, as Conan Doyle does here with John Girdlestone and as Dickens did with Seth Pecksniff. Both characters projected their supposed righteousness via religious and traditionally moral facades. 

Righteousness still has religious connotations, but much less so than in Dickens’ and Conan Doyle’s day. Even so, in view of her religious upbringing one might expect Theresa May to have a degree of righteousness in her political persona but she doesn’t. Neither does Jeremy Corbyn, yet Conan Doyle’s quote seem to fit Corbyn better than May. It fits his politics, it fits his supporters.

In modern times, the whole idea of righteousness has become much more political and rather more covert. It is signalled via behaviour and language rather than explicit religious quotations or moral maxims. It has morphed into political virtue-signalling and is not likely to be religious nor traditionally moral.

It was easy enough in Dickens' and Conan Doyle's day, but somehow we have made it even easier to be righteously stupid, righteously incompetent, righteously dishonest, righteously wicked.