By Neil Dykstra
And when Fashion hath once Established, what Folly or Craft began, Custom makes it Sacred, and ‘twill be thought impudence or madness, to contradict or question it. – John Locke
If nothing else, the leaked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia have prompted a healthy degree of suspicion on the processes of the scientific community. Principal of these is the practice of peer-review, in which scientific work is verified by other experts in the field. It is widely regarded to be the gold standard of scientific authenticity. Consequently, peer-reviewed research is often deemed to be the closest thing to objective truth. Subsequently, the term “peer-review” was used by many a politician as a means to authenticate their ideology and discredit others.
The leaked e-mails give a glance into a politicized environment in which the peer-reviewed process is rigged in order to guarantee a consensus. Dissenting researchers are sidelined by denying entry of their work into the peer-review process. Websites that are intended to discuss climate science are carefully controlled to promote one point of view and discredit others.
At one point, researchers discuss how to deal with a scientific journal that is publishing studies that don’t fit with the climate-change narrative. They suggest using their clout to get rid of particular editorial board members at the journal, Climate Research, who they deem as “suspect”. This worked, as editors like Hans Von Storch were forced to resign. Soon after, the journal Geophysical Research Letters was also targeted by the same group of researchers, and they forced GRL editor James Saiers to resign.
What we see here is the fabrication of a consensus on a coming crisis. Often, the only time that major policy changes and power shifts are possible is during such a crisis. As a result, politicians are apt to exaggerate the depth and scope of existing or potential calamities. Mountains are made of molehills, and at times not even so much as a molehill is a prerequisite. The scientific community, in partnership with a pliable mainstream media, serves as useful tools for the state to manufacture such crises. Due to the structure of funding for scientific research, the incentive is there to produce conclusions that benefit those that authorize the grants to begin with – the politicians. Contribute to the consensus, and you will receive more grant money, more equipment, a larger research staff, notoriety, and political pull. Producing research that does not support the paradigm leads to a reduction in funding and, sooner or later, another line of work.
The consensus, as are many others throughout history, is not based on a foundation of truth, but rather created by stealth, by force, and by deception. It parallels other instances of consensus when the truth, in the revealed word of God, was subverted for political power. The machinations of the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church during the middle ages bear a striking resemblance to what is going on today in today’s scientific community.
The disregard for truth is exemplified both by Pope Leo X, who imposed silence on church officials to combat Luther’s ninety-five theses, and also by climate researchers like Tom Wigley, who state that perception is much more important than truth. Money is stolen from the people by taking advantage of their sense of guilt, either by the sale of indulgences or by the marketing of carbon offsets. Those who oppose the political consensus are persecuted, some by religious inquisitions and others by discrediting, marginalization, jailing, and threats of violence.
Another Reformation is needed, only this time in the scientific community. But with so many vested interests, I don’t expect Science to distance itself very far from Politics in the foreseeable future.
Neil Dykstra leads a local chapter of the Association for Reformed Political Action, and lives in B.C.
Public date: November 26th, 2009Categories: Opinion
Tags: climate change, environmentalism, global warming, science
