#ButBias

Description. – How to suggest that AGW only works because of

Examples

[]

[OLIVER] Without a paradigm shift, the path of climate diplomacy leads directly into self-inflicted irrelevance and “the end of climate policy”.

[JUDY] There has been a particularly toxic positive feedback loop between climate science and policy and politics, whose direction has arguably been reversed as result of [#ButCG].

[REINER] 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 [#ButCG].

Objections and Replies

§1. Motivated reasoning!
We all display motivated reasoning. As such, the accusation obtains trivially. The question being begged is if how motivated reasoning impacts the AGW theory.

§2. Ideology! – Ideology always seems to be what otters hold. Whining about ideology looks like a trick to bypass engineering real solutions.

§3. Politics!
Many climate scientists are life-long Republicans: Jim Hansen, Karl Emanuel, Richard Alley, etc.

§4. Paradigm shifts!
We always need a new paradigm.

§5. Noble cause corruption. –

§6. Grift. – 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.

Notes

Can degenerate into #ButReligion, #ButCG or #ButPsyOp. Can lead to ButCredentials, ButExpertise, #ButScience, #ButINTEGRITY, #ButIPCC, #ButFeynman, etc.

Where’s there’s money, there’s grift. Grift without money could in theory be possible, i.e. ideology, but if it does not translate into money who cares.