Cheap Seats 2023 By Rich Trzupek

Send in the Clowns - 10/18

By Rich Trzupek
  On Oct. 11 the Epoch Times (an occasional outlet for your humble correspondent) ran a piece entitled “Era of ‘Unquestioned and Unchallenged’ Climate Change Claims Is Over.” It discussed recent papers published in scientific journals that effectively question some of the more popular arguments supporting the theory that we live in a time of catastrophic, man-made climate change.
  The response to dissent from scientists heavily invested in climate change orthodoxy was both predictable and disappointing. They mostly belittled and berated the heretics that put forth the contrarian views, along with publishers who would allow such ideas to circulate.  Professor Michael Mann, one of the leading voices sounding the climate change alarm, referred to the authors – equally distinguished academics for the most part – as “clowns.” A like-minded scientist, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, was equally as dismissive.
  In contrast, remarks made by the authors themselves and prominent supporters in the scientific community were significantly more professional and, if not exactly friendly, far less insulting and dismissive. Sadly, that’s pretty much the way it is these days. If you’re not completely on board the climate catastrophe bus, you’re an enemy and therefore deserving of insult and dismissal. But the opposite rarely happens. Skeptics like Willie Soon, Roy Spence, Judith Curry, etc. are genuinely nice people who spend the vast majority of their time in the arena of ideas taking about science and policy, not spewing ad-hominem insults. Did you ever wonder why the difference?
  We’re talking about the different approaches among the professionals, which all of the examples listed above certainly are. We’re not talking about the infinity of scrums that dominates electronic media, where lack of respect for contrary ideas and those who espouse them is required if one is to play the game. It’s entirely normal for professionals in the sciences to support differing theories. It’s not normal for one professional to hurl gratuitous insults at another professional over legitimate points of discussion. So why do scientists like Mann, Schmidt and the like behave so boorishly, so often?
  One possible reason is that they don’t have a choice – not really. Like a lot of scientists, they appear to suffer from the myopia that often accompanies immersion in a particular field. The old saying that to a carpenter equipped only with a hammer, every problem looks a like a nail applies here. If you’re a climate scientist who has spent a large part of your career and staked your reputation on the proposition that greenhouse gases have a disproportionate and calamitous effect on our planet’s climate trends, you may not tend to soberly consider an alternative hypothesis. You’re knee jerk reaction may be to discredit it as quickly and fiercely as possible.
  Scientists, particularly very smart scientists, have monumental egos. As Frank Lloyd Wright famously observed, it’s hard to be humble when you know you’re great. So yes, I could see that ideal of decorum and respect we’re taught when pursuing a degree in the sciences flying out the window in this situation. One can practically hear the voice in our theoretical climatologist’s head: “I’ve been doing this research since forever and a day and I know what I’m doing. No little snot of a (fill in your favorite non-climatology science degree here) is going to tell me I’m wrong!”
  If the combination of professional pride and intellectual snobbery provides the temptation to abandon professional courtesy, the influence of politicians and public relations experts often tip the balance. The petulant climatologist cries: “I’m right! And they’re wrong! I hate them!” Then the politicos and PR types wrap a soothing arm around the aggrieved, cooing: “Of course you’re right dear. You’re the expert. Pay no attention to them. They’re just jealous. And DO NOT engage them in discussion. That’s what they want, but you can’t do it. That would legitimize their silly arguments. Better to just make a clever remark and move on.”
  Thus, we live in this odd time during which some people have identified the ever-approaching (but never arriving) climate catastrophe as the most important issue of our time, but it’s an issue we’re not supposed to discuss. We’re not even supposed to try to understand it, at least not beyond the narrowly-defined limits of knowledge set forth by the high priests of the theory.
  And so, while many climatologists who preach climate catastrophe may be able to engage in a discussion with dissenting peers, they can’t. They can’t because they are naturally disinclined to do so, and because their handlers won’t let them. The relentless narrative is all that matters. There can be no discussion. And so they are reduced to childish insults, meant not to engage in a dialogue, but to avoid having to do so.
  Email: richtrzupek@gmail.com