Another soldier in the army of straw men

It is difficult to tell just what point is being made in James Hrynyshyn’s post What science is really all about. He cites Ken Caldera and creates a straw man.

just how silly it is to argue that anthropogenic global warming is bothing but a conspiracy theory propagated by disingenuous researchers (and former vice-presidents) who are only trying to line their own pockets

The assertion is made, appearing to bash the “climate contrarian” –

We’re highly incentivized to show that all our colleagues are wrong. If we could come up with good evidence that they’re wrong, we would be out there publishing it. The evidence just doesn’t exist.

This particular straw man is an elevation or a variant of the reduction to the absurd. In addition to the assertions about no evidence there is the ridicule inherent in “It shouldn’t be necessary for such scientists to make such observations. But it is.” The first comment exposes the issue.

In this era of big science, funding is from the government. That means that salaries are politically driven. It may not be a conscious conspiracy but it is a serious issue of motivation in that, if the scientists doesn’t propose to research what catches the public interest and doesn’t produce results in sympathy with public views, he will find himself short of funding.

It is true that evidence and proper logic should rule science. The fundamental issue with the climate debate really isn’t about climate but rather about the influence of politics in science. To make assertions as Hrynyshyn seems to that the ideal is the reality is to paint over an ugly reality.

Comments are closed.