As with so many political disputes the sides can’t come together when you reach such a core point of “belief”. AGW was required to tax and regulate co2, the science came after the fact and the consensus of the IPCC was committed almost from inception to proving AGW and linking co2 as an obvious rainmaking (pardon the pun). Building on a natural socialist/eco-regulate enclave found in elite university research it hasn’t been too much trouble to steer and support a like minded core of climate science. Most of the extreme characters such as Al Gore, Joe Romm, Real Climate, Michael Mann, Hansen, Phil Jones and many linked to IPCC wealth redistribution agenda’s all can link in eco-extreme anti-carbon agenda’s (fight big oil etc. etc.). It isn’t just about money or politics but there are huge incentives as this article pointed out today regardless of how flawed the stats might be;
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261776/all-aboard-climate-gravy-train-iain-murray
It’s an over simplification to think that it’s driven by an agenda science community but it can’t be discounted to near zero either. People who gravitate toward a subset of environmental studies, regardless of grant agendas are more likely to be sympathic toward would-be eco-agenda themes. Why political cultures form many groups and I know there are many individual exceptions in any group or profession but we have to be honest and politically objective which is hard when in fact will be taken as an accusation or “conspiracy theory” by detractors. Try to point out that NPR or PBS are left of center news organizations (which is perhaps more obvious than academics), follow the ranting on discussion boards that will largely again split on party lines. Yes, talking past each other but are there really serious people who could say NPR/PBS are not left of center in bias? How do you continue a conversation with that level of dishonesty? Of course the IPCC/U.N. culture joins an active anti-carbon, pro-regulate, eco-idealistic green subset. Are saying this hasn’t impacted what many in science say or admit?
As for the burning bridge tactics? The standard now (for a considerable time)is to call those who dissent anti-science, ignorant and compare them to holocaust “deniers”. It isn’t hard to look past such a partisan core of hateful advocates. Again, this isn’t an isolated pattern of debate, visit any yahoo or Huffington discussion board on any number of topics and you can find many similar cultural debating styles that rhyme with climate topics. It’s often summed up by conservative groups as “liberal arrogance”.
I don’t know if it is a function of aging or the many internet mediums and the evolving media but the general vitriol and the core narrow minded political culture advocating “climate solutions” only reinforces my desire not to be subjugated by what is clearly a hyped science “consensus” mediated by a politically conflicted U.N. structure in coordination common statist proponents in the U.S. or anywhere else.
There has been nothing conclusive, predictive or over riding regarding climate science which remains an abstract and soft area of science. Nothing has been settled and clearly the practices and standards (Michael Mann and the IPCC summary groups as easy examples) have been stunningly lacking. Serious science has been hyjacked by a mad rush to profit and advance a statist co2 regulation culture on a global basis.
It would be nice if there are those who could talk but in the end the radical carbon agenda must simply be defeated. Perhaps the IPCC can be more open and transparent, this will be fought every step of the way by those who have steered the agw “consensus” to this point. I’m aware of the price (social and perhaps more) paid by our host for stepping out of a level of orthodoxy already, I give her credit. Far more is required by many more. It is impossible to dismiss the political agenda setting and opposition and focus only on “science” at this point. Until an honest political balance of restored in core organizations such as the IPCC and the many sympathetic science organizations little will be settled. The many “silent” scientist must be counted and there views both on science and politics must be disclosed. In the end the general public will have to decide, it isn’t up to a science consensus alone. Sad as it may be but if the promotion of agenda science becomes mainsteamed as it has in the case of the IPCC and AGW co2 regulatory advocates without correction than the only moral act is to dispute and resist.
What would be a good peace offering? Lets strike the term “denier”, “anti-science”, “settled science” and many other terms as a start.
