'Cry Wolf': Parallels with Climategate? 

In our last post, we touched on the subversive methods of progressive players in the recent "Cry Wolf" scandal. Some commenters jokingly asked if these academics are linked to Acorn. It turns out they are. Now, I don't want to be accused of guilt by association, so I'll let their methods speak for themselves.

Let's focus on another angle: these academics want to pay people to support an anti-intellectual project--and to do so in the name of scholarship. In other words they're offering to outsource the so-called "research," which is little more than using a network of select people to cherry-pick historical factoids (likely written by other progressives) that will prop up the narrative. The "narrative" is, of course, the magical progressive economic agenda--which has given us the Stimulus Bill, welfare pre-1996, and America's favorite intergenerational Ponzi scheme, Social Security. Of course, there will be an elite panel who will accept and pay for these research submissions -- a gateway, if you will. Ever heard of this approach?

You are correct: the IPCC. Under this strategy, a small group of gatekeepers control the inputs and outputs of the 'consensus.' What about the scholars and researchers whose careers and bread/butter depend on getting through the gate? They must play or get no pay. And are these two heads of the same hydra? I won't detail the systematic exclusion of minority reports and niggling details that the IPCC cabal omitted to 'craft a narrative' for climate change. Instead, you can see for yourself in gruesome detail.
What are some other parallels to the Climategate scandal?

  • Plans to suppress, marginalize or simply never to include dissenting opinions or critical findings. 
  • Plans to use the mainstream media as a pipeline for dubious or cherry-picked findings.
  • Ad hominem and tu quoque attacks against those who disagree. (Remember the "denial machine" accusation?)
  • Plans to include unscientific research from activist groups and students.

Among those on the Cry Wolf network list, you are not likely to find a credible economist or economic historian -- which means they are pretending to know what they are talking about when it comes to economic matters. Perhaps they can elicit the help of former academic economist Paul Krugman who has clearly sold his credentials as a scholar to the socialist salon. (From their perspective, it wouldn't matter what the preponderance of economic evidence indicates... Wave that Nobel around! There are counternarratives to be created!)

In typical fashion, the progressives are already on the defensive with the "you too!" argument. See what happens when you replace Logic 101 classes with "Agitprop from Mother Goddess to Marx"? The lack of critical thinking on this matter simply goes to the original point. So thanks.

As we try to imagine what a credible academic study along these lines might look like, I don't think such would be easy. To make it methodologically sound or intellectually honest, you'd have to have a set of standards or criteria for an academic study worthy of the public trust. You might want to get folks from a range of perspectives. You might want to admit when progressive policies have failed and/or created perverse effects (rather than ignore such failures). But since they are engaging in propaganda, such standards are just so much enlightenment detritus standing in the way of their political goals. And that, folks, is the effect of postmodernism on higher ed.

As we mentioned, this cabal is requesting "studies" from grad students who are desperately trying to build their own careers and looking to them as authorities who will give them a leg up. The mutual parasitism is pretty appalling -- especially considering these people take our tax dollars to carry out so much of what they do.  

For the time being, though, the credentials of these progressive academics give them an air of credibility. The MSM can grab up this stuff and run with it -- all without the slightest reflection. These are "academic studies" after all. In other words, the profs use the letters behind their names to set themselves up as experts at the top of an MSM pipeline. Journalists turn around and pump the stuff out to an increasingly suspicious readership. It's slick, to be sure. But it's unethical--just as it was with all the so-called "climate science" that culminated in Climategate. And that's why it can't work as a long-term strategy.

The very existence of this RFP is a clear admission that the created "narrative" has neither much "substance" nor "scholarly integrity." Support must be offered by an army of academic rent-seekers in the pay of yet another Soros-type. In short, this is activist methodology and not scholarship. It is an a predetermined conclusion for which plausible premises must be dredged up by paid worker bees. For all the talk of the climate "denial machine" and other such leftist tropes, this is just naked proof that the ends justify the means for these people. That means they are not scholars at all, but people who will stop at nothing to get what they want out of you and me (all while hiding behind three little letters).

About The Author

Max Borders

Pin It

More by Max Borders

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation