Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
discover whether the expert had any shady real estate dealings. Were there extramarital
affairs, prior convictions, drunk driving charges? How about cheating on taxes? Exposing
moral turpitude as a way to make up minds about climate experts may sound a bit
hyperbolic, but it isn't. It's the first approach to the climate problem. Aficionados decide
on physics through moral turpitude. Reality check: that should sound bonkers.
The moral turpitude of choice is fraud. Allegations are made that false opinions are
bought and paid for from experts by forces that aim to deceive. If identified, the next step
is to just ignore the offending experts, after some primal Paleolithic vilification. Simple
enough. But how can you find fraudulent experts out? You could turn to an 'expert' at
investigating the experts. But this is just another expert problem. Do you trust the experts
on experts? Is this a concern? Well, yes. There is a rich industry of activists anxious to
share their 'expertise' in implicating putative climate experts in evil deeds. But thoughtful
people soon catch on that something is amiss.
Many of their claims are outrageous smears that are probably actionable. Nevertheless,
celebrities, government officials and even heads of state deal freely in them. It's fashion,
like narrow lapels and short skirts. There are any number of libelous websites that claim
to expose climate experts who do not practice 'right thinking.' Why is this injustice spree
allowed to stand? Ironically, despite allegations of being on the take, many of the libelous
sites could probably be closed down if the experts in question actually had money for libel
actions.
Realclimateexpertsarerealscientists.Theydon'ttestthemoralityofexpertstodecide
what's true in nature, because they don't believe any experts. That's science. They don't
worry about deception, because we humans do an excellent job at getting things wrong
even without lies! For real scientists, the issue is finding out the falsehoods irrespective of
motives. Test things, not persons. That's science at its best. It follows that real scientists
findthemoralturpitudetest,andtheaccompanyingprimalpolitics,bewildering.It'safarce
to them. So let's set moral turpitude aside.
Another popular tactic for asserting control, when you know nothing, is to test
qualifications: the competency method. Maybe you can decide on which expert to believe
based on whether the expert is qualified. I once heard from a journalist who was compiling
a list of those qualified to speak publicly about climate. His dream, simply put, was
that qualified experts speak and everyone else shuts up. He approached me to determine
whether I should be on his list.
I asked him what made him qualified to decide who was qualified. Silence. It borders
on a self-referential paradox. Who is qualified to choose who is qualified to compile such
alist?Itwasn'tevennecessarytopointoutthatself-appointedqualification decidersmight
just rule out experts holding views they don't like. So much for the competency method.
It would be simpler if all experts were to say the same thing. This is easily achieved,
if you are up for some mathematical madness. Simply define experts as those holding a
