Evil Fruit

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
 Mathew 7:17 KJV 


I was reading Judith Curry's  thoughtful post at her web site about the "hide the decline" controversy. I was struck by the perception that she was concerned that the whole "Hockey Stick/ "hide the decline " could be a real stain upon her chosen profession. The passage that caught my attention was this

The question I am asking myself is what is my role as a scientist in challenging misuses of science (as per Beddington’s challenge)? Why or why not should I personally get involved in this?

Really, as a scientist should she get involved in corruption of her science ? I'm definitely not a scientist or I suspect anywhere near being as intellectually qualified as Ms Curry, hell I don't even know what Beddington's challenge is. However as someone who originally came to the global warming debate with no predetermined view on the subject, I pretty much believed  the entire global warming  science as portrayed by the media was true, after all the scientist agreed... right ? Scientist are basically honorable people, after all the very nature of science is seeking the truth...right?


I would probably have gone through life believing this and have remained blissfully unaware of the the greatest scientific scandal in history had I not stumbled upon a blog over at the Weather Underground site and become interested in the debate. What began to change my attitude from benign acceptance to complete "denial" of the theory of catastrophic man made global warming was the attitude of the proponents of the theory.  What grated me the most as I became interested in the debate was the utter contempt proponents of AGW displayed towards those who questioned their narrative. Had it just been childish bloggers  it would probably not have gotten on my nerves, but it was the so called consensus community that promoted this abrasive and dismissive approach which  they displayed towards those who dared question the narrative. Nowhere was this more grating to me than the way they treated the people who should have been  at least listened to in the climate science community but instead were ridiculed and mocked. As I wrote in part:

What motive does an established respected scientist at the end of their career have to take on the entire science community? To have an entire lifetime of distinguished work besmirched and ridiculed by the very people whom just years before, they taught.

The recently deceased Reid Bryson was for years known as the father of modern climatology a geologist and meteorologist, the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies, made a Global Laureate by the United Nations Global Environment Program. This man’s stature in the world of climate sciences can not be disputed.

" All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."…… "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide".

Why would such a man say such things? What was there to gain? He was already recognized as one of the greatest scientist of his time and yet he basically tells the science field he has belonged to his entire life , the field of science he is considered one of the founders of- “you are full of crap”. He is just one example but ask yourself, what was his motive, fame ? money ? All he received for his position against the AGW theory was ridicule from a bunch of pygmies.

Observing the debate I was more and more reminded of the old lawyers adage

When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. And when you don’t have either the law or the facts on your side, pound the table!

 The more I studied the issues and the arguments the more I realized that the AGW crowd really did not have the facts on their side, though they did have the law (appeal to authority) what they primarily did was pound the table, and if anybody got in their way pound them too.

The most important tool they have at their disposal is an old progressive trick, actually it is not a trick at all it is the entire foundation of progressive ideology, progress, incrementalism. Move the narrative forward at all cost and don't allow your opposition to go back to show the fallacy of the previous assertion. Make your point of view the accepted view regardless of whether or not it is built on a pile of crap which on future review can be proven wrong. It matters not, the narrative has become accepted by a larger and larger segment of society.  They have eaten the corrupted fruit so feed them more.

Without going back too far, which others have done, there has been three critical quasi-scientific events in promoting the AGW agenda, all of which have been shown to be wildly exaggerated assertions and in some cases out and out fraud. In order they were:

James Hansen's testimony before congress in June of 1988
 
The publication and promotion of the "Hockey Stick " in 1999 and it's prominent place in the IPCC TAR report
 
Al Gore's  Docudrama "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006

None of these are really science, in all three cases they were more about promoting an ideology than proving a theory. Yet these three events were used like a sledge hammer to stifle debate and convince a trusting public of something that in all three cases would later be proven to be either false, exaggerated or out and out fraud. These are large branches of an evil tree  which the climate science community continues to feed off as if they did not know that much of their science is based on the promotion of provably false claims. The gluttony of corruption and greed is so pervasive that it is better to close ones eyes to that which is so obvious to the untainted, lest you stain your elitist white smock.

Despite Ms Curry's lack of interest in "tree rings" the fact remains that if the MWP was warmer than today and global in nature, nearly all the silly studies being done today are based on a falsehood. But it is far worse than that, this evil tree has grown roots into a global multifaceted entity whose tentacles corrupt everything it touches from politics, to education (at all levels) to economies, and ultimately into the very soul of human trust in one another so necessary for the advancement of our species. 

My daughter has lived her entire twenty five years of life being bombarded by nonsensical science. This science was a seed planted by devious and deceptive people which has grown into a giant tree which cast a dark shadow over humanity, frightening and misleading children, corrupting institutions needed for the well being of society, spending and misdirecting vast resources which humanity so desperately needs for real progress. The harm done by just the "Hockey Stick/ hide the decline" is incalculable, the fruits of lies seldom are easily computed.


I am a nobody that is blessed to live in a time when I have a computer and the internet, but few will read this so it will have little effect on the "great debate". But people like Ms Curry are respected scientist who have a world wide audience, yet she asks "what is my role as a scientist in challenging misuses of science "

Your role Ms Curry is to seek and tell the truth, I once believed that was what scientist did perhaps you know better.


If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.
- Anon

For you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.