|Kim Dabelstein Petersen|
We often hear about the political nature of the skepticism voiced against the anthropogenic global warming theory. The problem is, it's often simply assumed that there is no political bias in the opposite direction.
Yes, I'm well aware that if sceptics or critics accuse the believers of political bias in favour of the AGWT, then they can easily return the favour and accuse the sceptics/critics of political bias against it. Despite that, sceptical scientists should be happy with that counter-accusation. As long as both sides sides of the argument are scrutinised for political and ideological bias – then let the best man win. But there's a problem with that easy option. That problem is that the sceptics/critics aren’t as well-funded, government-friendly and well-publicised as the believers.
Clearly, and rather disgustingly, this is an attempt to try and make out that being sceptical about - or critical of – the AGWT is equivalent to denying the Holocaust.
In terms of the reference to the “politically or economically motivated attempts to downplay” the AGWT: it can be said that since governments and huge public bodies - such as the UN - are involved in selling us this theory, then surely political bias is more likely to be shown by believers, not by sceptics.
Not surprisingly, scientists are good at science. Or, more correctly, most scientists are good at that tiny parts of the tiny parts of the sub-disciplines they have spent their lives studying.
As for those stats just mentioned (there are copious stats in the two articles), even statisticians are quite happy to say that they can be used to advance any argument and say just about anything.
Take following statistical example from one of the Wiki articles:
Firstly, how large were these successive increases? Were they problematic or trivial increases? Is “since 1850” a long/short or even relevant period when it comes to these issues? And why did this scientist, or writer, choose 1850 in the first place? Was it because that up to that period there had been similarly “successively warmer” decades which happened to have peaked in 1850? (Politicians and economists indulge in this dishonest trick all the time when they plot their graphs.) In other words, after 1850 peak the global temperature might have fallen – perhaps suddenly. Thus when we come to the “last three decades” (from the 1990s), the increases may have been in relation to the low levels of the immediately- proceeding decades.
I don't know the answers to these questions because I'm not going to check. That's not the main point being made here. The point being made is that a statistician, or a scientist in this case, can quite easily play games with the stats in order to make them say just about anything he wants them to say.
The thing about the anthropogenic global warming theory is that within it science and politics fuse. Indeed for decades Leftists/Marxists, post-structuralists and postmodernists have been telling us that this is the case with all science. However, such people are strangely silent when the science, or theory (such as AGWT), advances something they politically agree with.
So, all along, Leftists/Marxists didn't have a problem with "the political nature of science". They had a problem when science advanced politically incorrect - rather than politically correct - views or theories.
The article never claims it's all a "hoax" either.
I myself mentioned payment in the article because most mentions of payment refer to Big Bad Businesses funding the sceptics. Yet there is a ton of money to be made in the AGW business: from the UN to government handouts, from university departments all the way to publishing deals.