“But Bias”

Because we’re biased toward bias.


[DAMIEN] Balance isn’t bias, kids.

[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].

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

[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

Reply. Many climate scientists are life—long Republicans: Jim Hansen, Karl Emanuel, Richard Alley, etc.

Reply. 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.

Reply. 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.

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


(Motivated) You’re displaying motivated reasoning—
Reply. 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
Reply. We always need a new paradigm.


{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?