Taking a leaf from the playbook of ISIS post modern climate science exhibits its intolerance. Do not criticise me or you will be publicly smeared because we are the guardians of the truth. We say what truth is not you. The pet scientists of the politicians are granted an omniscience that they do not deserve and have not earned.
Politicians pushing a particular view carefully select the ‘science’ that supports their view and ignores that which does not. This is how political activists operate. Truth is nice but not essential to the achievement of the objective. Truth is expendable in politics. Those who challenge a view with good news are belittled and marginalised to the public in an attempt to reduce their influence. Politicians do not like to be shown to be dishonest, partisan and biased, especially when they are. Scientists who support the ‘conventional wisdom’ of their paymasters in politics do not want their funding affected by the truth. In postmodern science(science funded by the state) truth is nice but expendable in order to maintain the jobs and lifestyles of the supporting scientific caste. Good news is not welcome because a ‘’problem’ that isn’t a ‘problem’ doesn’t attract funding. Political funding will leave for more pressing - read problematic - fields of inquiry. Politicians want to play the role of saviour to their constituents.
Post modern science is POGO science. When science can pin the blame for a problem on human actions politicians can justify their craving for more control over the lives of their citizens. The MO of the state is to grow the State. There are an infinite number of problems which beg for a solution. Statists are only too happy to fill the void with programs, regulations and taxes without regard to present or future cost.
We must do it for our children and our children’s children. We have saved the world for you. Here is the bill.
But was there a serious problem in the first place. Post modern scientists - those dependent on the State for their incomes have a built in incentive to find POGO problems and to exaggerate their potential harm. Political activists have seized on this process to further their aims.
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." ~ Club of Rome
Truth is preferred but not essential. If the people can be made to believe there is a crisis that is enough.
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." ~ Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace
Susan Crockford has been highly critical of the model that has been used to list the polar bear as an endangered species. If she is correct then it calls into question the work of some of her colleagues who toil in the field. Her opinion, if left unchallenged, could influence what politicians do with Polar Bear research funding. This will affect the careers or polar bear researchers. It is in the interests of polar bear researcher to paint a dire picture of the state of the polar bear.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”― Upton Sinclair
So, a peer reviewed paper was published in Biosciences magazine which made many false statements about Ms Crockford and her work in a desperate attempt to discredit her. Ms Crockford has refused to be cowed by this unprofessional attack and has doubled down on her conclusions and refuted the inaccuracies in the paper. She has also called upon Biosciences to retract the attack paper. What will Biosciences do?
Their credibility as a publisher of accurate scientific papers is in question. Their peer review process has been exposed as shoddy. What will they do? The cynic in me predicts - not a thing. Our progressive world continues to lose sight of formerly ethical behaviour.
Meanwhile two new papers have been published which support the views of Ms Crockford. The Inuit live with the bears and their expertise is supported by science.
The myths of Man Made Climate Change continue to be exposed by honest scientists such as Ms Crockford. Some people care about their reputations while the interests of others are focused elsewhere as revealed by the nature of their personal attacks.
POGO issues are a great boon to activist scientists and politicians. They exploit them for more nefarious purposes. They cultivate the belief among their citizens that knowledge resides with the State who have access to the best information and therefore their omniscience is above reproach and not open to challenge.
Some people, when elected, think omniscience is part of the job description. But we need to remember that some people have agendas and can be devious in their attainment.
Polar Bears have survived warmer times in the past and are NOT cooperating with the preferred narrative of Arctic sea ice attrition the man made global warming alarmists promote.
We must measure and count to learn and hear what Mother Nature is saying and must always remember that it is she who has the ONLY opinion that counts.
References:
