Lead by Science [Part 3] The 'Death of God' has Consequences
“When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.” [Émile Cammaerts]
Recent years have seen an unlikely alliance emerge in the ranks of the bullshitting elite. For a while it seemed that climate scientists were set to topple economists from their lofty perch at the top of the world ranking tables, but cooler heads prevailed, and an unholy alliance was born. Now it is true that this formidable pairing has seen in 2020 a fearsome challenge from epidemiologists – lead by the Gates-funded virus alarmist Neil Ferguson of Imperial College. Impressive as his efforts were (we’ll discuss those another day), economists and climate scientists are in a league of their own. Their mutually reinforcing narratives have the potential to do untold harm, unless we recognize them for the world-class bullshitters they know themselves to be, and discount their pronouncements accordingly. Superficially, the coupling of economics, especially financial economics, with climate science may seem far-fetched, but the ties that bind practitioners of these dark arts run deep. They include, but are by no means limited to, the following.
Theories that are inherently untestable by way of controlled, repeatable experiments. Their models can only be tested with reference to a single run of history based on imperfect measures of the variables of interest – which themselves are often ill-defined.
Complex domains in which even the most sophisticated of models are but crude abstractions. Such models may help understand what mechanisms may be at play, but they cannot predict with any reliability. This latter point is hardly surprising as the simplifying assumptions are known to be unrealistic and there for the sake of mathematical elegance or computational convenience. Further, minor perturbations to the modeling inputs often make enormous differences to the outputs.
Not only a demonstrable inability to predict, but zero accountability for grossly inaccurate predictions.
Key research findings are based on models and data that are proprietary, opaque and unverifiable.
Incentives are highly perverted and similarly aligned: with zero accountability for errors and high payoffs for impactful results. Impactful results being those that attract media interest, and ultimately, funding.
Not only are the incentives of climate scientists and economists aligned, they are mutually reinforcing. Climatic forecasts seem all the more critical if their economic consequences are shown to be dire, and otherwise perverse economic policies can be promoted based on the dire projections of climatic doom. The ensuing feedback loop drowns out any question or hint of criticism.
In neither domain can the orthodoxy be questioned. Physicist Richard Feynman famously states, “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” Economists think differently. If observed data doesn't agree with the consensus model, it's called an “anomaly” – not the model, the observed phenomena! Climate scientists take a more ad-hominem approach: the messenger is labeled a “denier” and relegated to the lunatic fringe. If the latter doesn't work, history is rewritten to fit the narrative:
Are these claims exaggerated?
If anything, they are understated! We'll explore them all with specific examples in coming posts.
Why does this any of this matter?
Enormous top-down political, financial and social initiatives are being mobilized based on the narrative of climate change and the dire projections of its consequences. The social, economic and even environmental costs of the suggested “cures” are far easier to project than any impacts on temperature or climate. Acquiescing to policy mandates based on charlatanism could prove costly on many levels.
More Importantly
Climate scientists and economists know that while reality imposes inconvenient limits on true science, their own brand of pseudoscience is infinitely more accommodating. Narrative freedom coupled with an appearance of scientific authority is the cornerstone of their influence in a post-truth world. Scientism rules the day.
In their purest forms both science and religion are complementary quests for truth. The scientific method answers questions of “how” and questions of meaning and “why” are the domain of religion. The domains and modes of enquiry may differ, but they are nonetheless quests for truth. Nietzsche's claim that 'God is dead' has profound implications: human life loses its intrinsic value, and the very notion of objective truth is dispensed with. Declaring the death of God kills both religion and science, and what we're left with is Scientism: unquestioning adherence to a secular dogma wherein human life can no longer be sacred. Scientism is neither religion nor science, but the absolute worst of both.
Comments, questions or suggestions welcome! email: artofbull@mail.com