A form of psychological attribution. Can lead to personal abuse.
We all carry epistemic biases. Science is a collective endeavor that helps correct them.
Examples
Without a paradigm shift, the path of climate diplomacy leads directly into self-inflicted irrelevance and “the end of climate policy”.
(Oliver, who’s long on paradigms)
It is perhaps not remarkable that we see a ‘leading figure’ in the philosophy of science defend questionable practices which have been modelled (not by accident I suppose) after the famous […]
(Reiner, who’s long on #ButEmails)
Objections and Replies
Democrats—
☞ Many climate scientists are life—long Republicans: Jim Hansen, Karl Emanuel, Richard Alley, etc.
Grift—
☞ Geophysicists earn more money in the fossil fuels industry. Fame and fortune awaits the one who would falsify AGW. Joining the Contrarian Matrix is the most expedient way to get klout – look at Judy.
Groupthink—
☞ To portray oneself above what powered human cognition and language since the dawn of time is silly at best, annoying most of the times, or worse the basis of the kind of phenomenon that Chris & Matt Smith are trying to study.
Ideology —
☞ Ideology always seems to be what otters hold. Whining about ideology looks like a trick to bypass engineering real solutions.
Integrity. —
Motivated. You’re displaying motivated reasoning—
☞ As such, the accusation obtains trivially. The question being begged is if how motivated reasoning impacts the AGW theory.
Noble. Noble cause corruption—
☞
Paradigm. Without a paradigm shift, the path of climate diplomacy leads—
☞ We always need a new paradigm.
Notes
{Network} Can degenerate into #ButReligion, #ButCG or #ButPsyOp. Can lead to ButCredentials, ButExpertise, #ButScience, #ButINTEGRITY, #ButIPCC, #ButFeynman, etc.
{Money} Where’s there’s money, there’s grift. Grift without money could in theory be possible, e.g. fanaticism. If it does not translate into a grift, where’s the harm?
{Advocacy}
ClimateBall 