PROGRESS and DENIAL : the whiggish climate changers

Michael Marshall

We need to look for patterns in the subjects that ordinary (lay) climate deniers are in favor of and those they oppose.

I suspect the patterns are as visible in them as in the best known and most studied DENIERS.

They will probably turn out to be, to insta-coin a phrase ,"scientific libertarians" : people who resent any restraints on the inevitable path of progress - whether that comes from the hands of nature or from the hands of their fellow citizens.

In fact ,blaming your fellow earthlings when Nature doesn't let you do what you want is going to look like an increasingly attractive option to our frustrated denier majority.

Scientific Progress ,at the ground level, for the majority of us who are deniers, is ever increasing income, house size, car size, vacations, toys.

"No gas for my guzzler?"  "It's them frackin' Greens again !! "

"Problems ?" "Sure we have problems, but get the Greens out of the roadway and let Science fix it, as it always has - and always will - if only we let it."

"Unleash Chiang !"   "--- Dr Chiang,PhD ..."

Hitler lost his war when he ignored the possibility of early Autumn rain and mud and then of an early, cold ,winter of 1941 Russia - but his Plan B was ready ---- blame it on the Jews.

And the more he lost the war, the more Hitler sought to blame --- and kill ---- Jews.

We who oppose the deniers might yet face their wrath in a more physical manner than just a blog rant....

count me in among the anti-deniers: albeit, anti the LIMIT-deniers ...

Michael Marshall

The DENIERS swept the WEBLOG Awards (The BLOGGIES).

They should be congratulated for their efforts - just as we un-deniers, non-deniers,anti-deniers need to be told to do better and pull up our socks.

Its quite a battle out there: for every GREENIE WATCH there is a WATCHING THE DENIERS.

(Both blogs as it just so happens, are from Australia.)

My stance on denial is a little off the mainline, IMHO , because it is a little deeper, a little bit more fundamental.

I am after the WHIGGISH majority among the scientists operating in the world of Popular Science (science outside the Beltway of Peer-review) : which at some time or other includes almost all scientists, however defined.

Limit-deniers: sunnily dismissing any belief that ultimately humanity might never know everything there is to know about reality.

Panglossians.

Today they deny that man's efforts to change the climate could ever go 'out-of-control' (ie , of the control of Man and into the control of Mother Nature).

Tomorrow they will deny that it makes more sense to recycle the refined common metals we already use here on Earth than it is to mine them from asteroids.

Their denials of limits or restraint upon Man's abilities are , characteristically, limitless.....

My job isn't "inside the BELTWAY" ...

Michael Marshall

My job, as I see it , isn't "inside the BELTWAY" of peer-reviewed science.

Whenever I do peer inside that Beltway (ie when reading the articles in our leading science journals) I see little to complain about.

And I am a great one for complaining.

Instead I see provisional results, I see uncertainty, doubts, probabilities, possibilities, unknowns.

I see, in other words, scientists admitting that there are limits and restraints on what we can know and what we can do vis a vis the physical world.

(I am not naive and I know that these admissions are themselves frequently only provisional, necessitated by the need to be accepted into peer-reviewed journals.)

No, my concern is the science of our day-to-day world (POPULAR rather than PUBLIC science in my definition of those terms) and here I see big, literally "Life-Threatening", problems.

Most of us pick up what little notions of science's potential and methods we retain, from textbook teaching in high school or from a few undergraduate intro courses.

We supplement this with the occasional news item  and magazine article, perhaps even with that best-seller book from that famous scientist we've seen on the telly.

Out here in the real world, the science we get is still mostly Whiggish Science, Newtonian Science , a science that sunnily dismisses any possibility of limits to Man's knowledge of reality (given enough time and money thrown at the scientists' labs).

(Let me give you a mild example, from an article I recently read with admiration, until this short passage jarred me into alarm ; it's
from STEVEN WEINBERG, Nobel prize winner and a key architect of The Standard Model of physics:

"...I think that we'll get to the point where there are no puzzles of this sort. And that will be quite a remarkable turning point in the intellectual history of the human race."

To his credit, Dr Weinberg didn't quite say the physicists' equivalent of the medical doctors' "we can close the book on infectious disease", but in his quiet, cautious way, he came damn close.)

Most other examples are far more blatant.

And I see all this hot air hubris as what is driving our world to meet its Climate-Changed-Doom.

Not so oddly enough (given my previously stated lack of naivety) most of this Blue Sky Science wind is generated by the same chappies as what wrote those carefully constipated peer-reviewed articles: Drs Hyde & Jeckel, PhD,FRS .

My job then is to expose split-personality scientists and ask the real one to stand up: either stand up and admit they really see no limits to what Man can do or stand up and reaffirm that Reality will always be a bit of a mirage forever slightly beyond our grasp.

That is, I only want our scientists to be consistent: to say outside the Beltway of peer-reviewed journals what they say inside it.

Is that too much to ask ?

And once our Stevensonian pair have made their admissions , we will then be better forearmed as how to trust their handling of the Climate Change brief....