The ‘larger truth’ meets reason and reality

Louise Gray reports that Faulty science risks obscuring ‘larger truth’ of climate change at the Telegraph.

The high-ranking official said the Government had spoken to the IPCC about improving its standards following the recent revelations.

“We have expressed our desire to that the IPCC robustly defends the science and it improves its procedures where it has been shown not to be up to the highest standards,” he warned.

“It is really important that a much, much larger truth is not lost.”

That idea of a larger truth is coupled with the definition of the heretics making the issue bipolar.

Ed Miliband, the climate secretary, yesterday made the first high-level recognition that the debate on the issue had been undermined, declaring “battle” against the “siren voices” who denied global warming was real.

You can’t just question the ‘larger truth’ or wonder about its limits and context. If you don’t succumb whole-hog you become a denier and a heretic to the true cause.

How is this attitude rationalized? One is to minimize the flaws – “When the IPCC is challenged for a faulty sentence” as if one faulty sentence was the only problem. There is the dismissal of concerns> – ““Of course there are important uncertainties” as if those uncertainties were not the core problem. Then there is the appeal to the holy gods – “on the basics of physics and the wealth of evidence” but only from the selected context of the true believers.

Mr Miliband said the controversies must not be allowed to damage efforts to cut carbon emissions.

“It would be wrong that when a mistake is made it’s somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that’s there,” he said.

The problem is that the “overwhelming picture” is being shown to have a faulty foundation and it might perhaps be just a facade for a questionable ideology seeking dishonest expression.

Comments are closed.