Catching up a bit, this article by Paige St. John in the LA Times is a couple weeks old now and not on topic, but it introduces an important term to express a form of deceit that I have seen many times but did not have a term for.
Cal. Gov. Jerry Brown last month tied the rash of destructive fires to carbon emissions. One small problem, say the scientists. There is no scientific basis for that connection.
Cal. Gov. Jerry Brown last month tied the rash of destructive fires to carbon emissions. One small problem, say the scientists. There is no scientific basis for that connection.
University of Colorado climate change specialist Roger Pielke said Brown is engaging in "noble-cause corruption."Sometimes?
Pielke said it is easier to make a political case for change using immediate and local threats, rather than those on a global scale, especially given the subtleties of climate change research, which features probabilities subject to wide margins of error and contradiction by other findings.
"That is the nature of politics," Pielke said, "but sometimes the science really has to matter."
So what's wrong with noble-cause corruption? What's stretching the truth a bit if it takes us in the right direction?
Several things. First, whether a cause is noble is very much a matter of opinion, and some people otherwise on the fence may choose based on the factual assertion in question. The prime example is the sustained and successful effort to savage the work of the scholars who found a deterrent effect of capital punishment. The public now has a quite wrong idea about the state of deterrence research. Has this effort served a noble cause? The people engaged in it surely think so, but that is highly debatable.
Misrepresentation of the science may dissuade society from using genuinely effective remedies for serious problems in a couple of ways. One, as in the deterrence example, is direct, by convincing people it does not actually work. Another, noted in the story, is indirect, by diverting attention and resources from a solution that will work to one that does nothing.
Several things. First, whether a cause is noble is very much a matter of opinion, and some people otherwise on the fence may choose based on the factual assertion in question. The prime example is the sustained and successful effort to savage the work of the scholars who found a deterrent effect of capital punishment. The public now has a quite wrong idea about the state of deterrence research. Has this effort served a noble cause? The people engaged in it surely think so, but that is highly debatable.
Misrepresentation of the science may dissuade society from using genuinely effective remedies for serious problems in a couple of ways. One, as in the deterrence example, is direct, by convincing people it does not actually work. Another, noted in the story, is indirect, by diverting attention and resources from a solution that will work to one that does nothing.
Other experts say there is, in fact, a more immediate threat: a landscape altered by a century of fire suppression, timber cutting and development.The best antidote for noble-cause corruption is a diligent and skeptical press corps that genuinely cares about getting the truth out, letting the chips fall where they may. People who engage in noble-cause corruption think they can get away with it because they believe that assertions will not be challenged as long as they support the Politically Correct side of the debate. Too often they are right. Kudos to Paige St. John and the LA Times for calling this one out.
Public attention should be focused on understanding fire risk, controlling development and making existing homes safer with fire-rated roofs and ember-resistant vents, said Richard Halsey, who founded the Chaparral Institute in San Diego.
Otherwise, he said, "the houses will keep burning down and people will keep dying."
"I don't believe the climate change discussion is helpful," Halsey said.
Leave a comment