Several critical factors to keep in mind when pondering any big issue like "Climate Change":
The problem of groupthink; in this case, the academy, researchers, and many other professionals that at first glance might not seem involved: administrators, bureaucrats. In psychology this is called "cascade", it may have other similar names. In …
Several critical factors to keep in mind when pondering any big issue like "Climate Change":
The problem of groupthink; in this case, the academy, researchers, and many other professionals that at first glance might not seem involved: administrators, bureaucrats. In psychology this is called "cascade", it may have other similar names. In the worst case, all these people are cut from the same social, economic and intellectual cloth. They all went to the “right” universities. They know each other. They work in cloistered departments and see each other at specialist events geared to their industry. To over simply just a bit, they all think alike. They are, after all, the Elite who “know” that global warming is settled science and beyond dispute. Anyone who dares to challenge that dogma is viewed as a threat to their regime, their egos, their entire way of life. "Follow the money" explains much; entire careers and industries ride on the continuing trumpeting of (in this case) "Climate Change". At what point does the desire to get easy money trump impartial science?
There are numerous biases inherent in any such entity. For example, consider the dodgy usage of computer simulations. Despite all protestations to the contrary, the claims of impartiality and so forth, just how neutral are all those inputs of data into complex equations? How does one know that Programmer X hasn’t tweaked a formula, or data series, or section of code just enough to produce the “right” answer, you know, that everybody knows the Earth is warming, the seas are going to rise, and millions are going to die? This need not even be conscious intent; humans are influenced by unconscious/subconscious drives far more than they’d care to acknowledge.
These issues are difficult to quantify, yet they are hugely important in the operation, decision-making and opinions given by such institutions. They are extremely hard to defend against. And even when someone tries, there is institutional pushback against them.
Several critical factors to keep in mind when pondering any big issue like "Climate Change":
The problem of groupthink; in this case, the academy, researchers, and many other professionals that at first glance might not seem involved: administrators, bureaucrats. In psychology this is called "cascade", it may have other similar names. In the worst case, all these people are cut from the same social, economic and intellectual cloth. They all went to the “right” universities. They know each other. They work in cloistered departments and see each other at specialist events geared to their industry. To over simply just a bit, they all think alike. They are, after all, the Elite who “know” that global warming is settled science and beyond dispute. Anyone who dares to challenge that dogma is viewed as a threat to their regime, their egos, their entire way of life. "Follow the money" explains much; entire careers and industries ride on the continuing trumpeting of (in this case) "Climate Change". At what point does the desire to get easy money trump impartial science?
There are numerous biases inherent in any such entity. For example, consider the dodgy usage of computer simulations. Despite all protestations to the contrary, the claims of impartiality and so forth, just how neutral are all those inputs of data into complex equations? How does one know that Programmer X hasn’t tweaked a formula, or data series, or section of code just enough to produce the “right” answer, you know, that everybody knows the Earth is warming, the seas are going to rise, and millions are going to die? This need not even be conscious intent; humans are influenced by unconscious/subconscious drives far more than they’d care to acknowledge.
These issues are difficult to quantify, yet they are hugely important in the operation, decision-making and opinions given by such institutions. They are extremely hard to defend against. And even when someone tries, there is institutional pushback against them.