Did you know the political force driving the global warming drama comes specifically down from an organization called the UN IPCC (United Nations – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)?
The basis for many of these IPCC funded scientists for creating research that is published in scientific journals is due to “motivational reasoning”.
The ethics surrounding “motivational reasoning” is nothing new and is an ethical dilemma that effects other groups in society and not just the climate scientist crowd.
Where you see a disconnect among many in politics as well as the news media and all those they propagandize into believing their progressive line of thought is the idea that scientists somehow are impervious to this ethical problem.
So why do educated conservatives reject the supposed consensus on climate change science? Motivational reasoning is why you constantly here warming alarmist propaganda from scientists even in the face of contrary data, climategate emails, and actual raw video footage in the arctic and is the reason an educated conservative rejects the consensus.
The public’s trust in climate science has been dealt a serious blow because of this motivation reasoning problem. Because of this thorn in the flesh of many climate scientists there is ample reason for people to outright spurn any consensus on man-made climate change science.
In the document on being a scientist, research scientists all have the duty to adhere to principles of ethical research. When you combine this responsibility with other standards handed down by organizations like the IPCC you create a real problem for the case of pure science.
For a scientist involved in research you have care over your conscience as well as your colleagues, institutions such as a university, the public, the environment, and perhaps a few more I have missed.
You will find that several kinds of motivation reasoning examples exist in this list of ethical responsibilities that can bias the scientific process and breach professional standards.
Climate science is ripe with examples of these types of ethical breaches.
Scientists have been known to bias their research out of concerns over public policy and environment in indirect ways. You will even see times where they will actively work to hide evidence and even create evidence to disprove their challenger.
Let’s say an atmospheric scientist discovers something that challenges a specific model of sea level increases that happens because of man-made global warming.
She believes honestly that this new evidence after being crystallized by further examination will eventually show to not actually refute the popular viewpoint held by the well respected political organization known as the UN IPCC.
She is a good little researcher and decides to hold off on submitting the research to a science journal so as not to give ammunition to the climate unbelievers out there.
A slight problem arises when the information leaks out and the media gets a hold of the research. A conservative science skeptic website accuses the scientist of a cover-up and reveal that key evidence about man-mad climate change has been disproved.
What would your opinion be if someone responds in this manner is asked of a modern day climate scientist: “The atmospheric science researcher did nothing unethical when keeping back new information from the public; she predicted the potential of the new data being used in inaccurate ways and was just doing her part in bolstering public freedom.”
This is the main issue we have right now in climate science where the good cause motivates much of the research and at the same time puts the researcher in a unique place in the mechanism that decides on what is scientific fact or not.
This unique place in climate research allows them to do a way with what would normally be considered crucial pillars of professional conduct.
Why do you think we see leading scientists in climate change philosophy defend unethical practices that seem to conform very similarly to what we saw in the whole climategate debacle?
You see this unethical behavior regularly because the risk of losing all credibility in climate change science and even science is seen as a real danger to these climate scientists.
If a large community like facebook users were to come across this type of skeptic commentary they might begin to think that science can be constructed to the will of the scientists or elites to the point of being completely faked.
If the general public got wind that scientists hold the authority of which data to keep and which to make available to the public then people very well might tend to side with the idea that a lot of science is in fact made up.
This discrediting of science is why motivational reasoning is a real problem. If you can’t trust something as objective as science who can you trust. The climate scientists like to pretend that they are impervious to motivational reasoning but it has been shown to be the case specifically within the climate science philosophy.
Phillip Kitcher who is a leading figure in the philosophy of science concludes, ”The atmo-spheric scientist was not wrong to withhold the information from the public”.
As you can see even now in the present day withholding scientific data from the public due to motivational reasoning is accepted by leading figures in science and helps to justify this practice within climate science.
Climate scientists must report both sides of the data in order to get the society to trust them. Regardless if the storyline they would like to push will be promoted in their new data they should stick to adhering to professional standards and simply be a scientist.
Just like nobody believes there was a 100 % voter turnout for Kim Jong-il with 99 % voting for his re-election most people don’t buy the 97 % consensus on man-made global warming.
These consensus reports in scientific journals have become as laughable as the North Korean elections.
A real world example of withholding scientific data happened by a colleague of Judith Curry’s when one of her scientist friends was considering publishing a paper that would challenge the IPCC interpretation of the previous pause during the 1940’s – 1970’s. A power point presentation was sent out by this scientist to 3 other colleagues. Each of these scientists are very well respected senior scientists and none of them were even promoters of man-made climate change.
All 3 of these scientists strongly persuaded their colleague not to publish the paper because it would encourage the skeptics.
These scientists grapple with trying to maintain professional standards within their scientific process while at the same time trying to administer larger ethical issues involving the well being of the public and the environment.
What ends up happening is these scientists break the rules of science by trying to adhere to much larger ethical issues causing much more harm than good.
An overwhelming amount of what is happening regarding global warming science is in the suppression of evidence and attempts at stifling skeptical research even if that is simply keeping contrary data from ever reaching the public domain.
The most obvious example of this breach of public trust is in the numerous examples you find in the Climategate emails.
The best explanation I have heard in regards to what is happening is called, “Noble cause corruption”, this is a corruption where the ends (noble) justify the means (ignoble).
Unfortunately the climate science corruption is much worse than this explanation and more complex when you combine institutional loyalties and loyalty to colleagues.
As the The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty was signed and the IPCC was released to promote their conclusions to the world the man-made global warming cause was set into motion to become a self fulfilling prophecy.
The way the IPCC “framework” was created was constructed around identifying enough evidence to make the case that human-induced greenhouse warming is an indisputable fact.
You often will even hear their political left wing lemmings on facebook, twitter, and Google Plus pronounce that “global warming is a fact” in those exact words.
This propaganda of persuading everyone that man is the cause of unprecedented global warming was the goal all along but you may have seen how that has shifted to mean “extreme weather” climate change” as the earth has begun to cool.
From convincing everyone about global warming the next step in the framework was to use this publicly accepted rationale for creating a political desire to build and enforce carbon stabilization targets.
From there you have national and international science programs receiving UN funds to support the IPCC objectives. The very nucleus of the IPCC is a large group of scientists that created their very career based from the IPCC.
Many of these scientists rose to prominence very quickly within the jump start platform of the IPCC and achieve much of their influence not from science but from the “politics of science and policy”.
Most of these IPCC scientists have a vested interest because they built their career in this framework and get to play the power politics game from their position.
What these scientists receive is acceptance from professional societies, institutions that fund science and numerous scientific journals. Within the fields of ecology and public health these IPCC scientists achieve enough public attention to steer large amounts of money to them giving them further loyalty from their institutions which they can’t help but reciprocate because of the extra publicity and funds.
In summary these IPCC scientists probably don’t fully understand the political policy implications of their allegiance but instead promote their type of junk science along side the political policies that are made by it because they see the policies as an outgrowth of the IPCC organization that made their career.
Without the IPCC these scientists lose their success, funding, and influence and so you end up with a culture that protects and preserves not only the man-made global warming science but any policies that are created from it.
The move into politics undermines the field of climate science and the fields of science that have attempted to prop-up many of their dubious alarmist claims. The massive institutionalization of a consensus that has been manufactured by the IPCC is being used to create political policy that serves to erode national sovereignty, redistribute the wealth of the world via a tax on energy and electricity, consolidate power in the hands of a few, and move us into a one world government all in the innocent sounding name of sustainable development.