Psychology behind Climategate

By Jim Tynen

To understand Climategate, its psychology must be better understood. And then we can perhaps understand why a certain class is so willing to destroy the society that created it.

For it's strange to see scientists, bureaucrats, politicians and journalists backing measures that would destroy the industrial society that sustains them. Lowering carbon emissions along the lines ofAl Gore and the Copenhagen cohorts seek would require taking energy use back to the level of the 19th century. There was far less of a need then for researchers, policy specialists, assistant directors, Ph.D candidates, and the whole New Class that so fanatically supports such measures.

But the modern scientific mindset abhors any thought that the cosmos as an order or purpose. Therefore it must be chaotic, meaningless, random.

"The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless," physicist Steven Weinberg famously said.

Stephen Jay Gould proclaims, "Darwin argues that evolution has no purpose. Individuals struggle to increase the representation of their genes in future generations, and that is all."

Evolution advocate Richard Dawkins asserts, ‘The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

As biologist George Gaylord Simpson put it, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."

This is what members of the scientific establishment believe, on some level. The result, however, must be that they hate and fear nature.

How could it be otherwise? There is, Darwin forbid, no organization in nature. It is a ceaseless, random swirl of matter, headed in no particular direction. Therefore, it is a danger to man. Anything could happen, for no reason at all, and therefore the cosmos, and nature, always threaten humankind. So that's how scientists must imagine the future.

Look at the warming scenarios. The ice caps melt; rising seas swamp Bangladesh and New York; monsoons smash into India, hurricanes ravage the U.S; the Amazon jungle dies off; the American Southwest becomes an uninhabitable desert; millions die of diseases; societies are devastated; millions of refugees roam the continents.

This reflects perfectly the scientific worldview. So in a sense the data are beside the point. The scientific imagination, shaped by a nihilistic worldview, can't help seeing nature as a malign, chaotic force. One decade it's another Ice Age, the next it's devastating heat.

That's a fundamental reason Climategate happened. Some of the e-mails depict scientists bewildered at the failure of a warming trend to develop. To them, the data just can't be right. So the scientists fix the data.

Such bias is true of all human beings, as psychologists have long known. In climate science this is especially true when the data are so complex and hard to evaluate. This isn't Galileo measuring the speed of a falling object. This is the evaluation of thousands of temperature readings. The difficulty is multiplied when that data is used to understand the world climate; then made even more complex when trying to predict the effects on the globe.

More importantly, it suggests that no actual action could quell these fears.

For instance, the Copenhagen goal for worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide us 450 parts per million. Al Gore has said a better target would be 350 parts per million.

He's been quoted as saying, “Are we doing enough? The answer is obviously no — 450 is not the right target. But it is presently seen as beyond the capacity of governments around the world."

But no target can still the anxieties of those whose fundamental worldview is that the cosmos is chaotic and malign. For, logically, if carbon dioxide is a threat in such a world, any amount could be dangerous. It would be very difficult to assuage such anxiety. And f somehow those fears are relieved, another fear will take its place. For global warming, like a neurotic's fear, is just a symptom of a deeper anxiety. A couple of decades ago it was a new Ice Age; it could be that again in a few years; or something else. But only a change in the fundamental worldview will erase such terror. There's little sign of that happening.

On a practical level, moreover, there is no point in trying to compromise with the warming crowd. Nothing humanity can do will relieve their fears. The only reasonable course is to pursue common sense ways of using energy more efficiently, such as nuclear power, and brace to meet the next panic in the scientific world.