- 17 Oct 2018 23:12
#14954443
Sir Muir Russell and Lord Oxburgh.
They control the politics inside discipline. They have a lot of influence over careers and reputations.
To preserve the authority and credibility of their institutions and that of the larger institution of science itself. Science is a priesthood and just like any priesthood it closes ranks when its integrity is challenged.
People who spend a decade studying to make a career for themselves inside academia aren't natural born world shakers, science isn't the cutthroat world you seem to imagine it is. In that line of work people get awards, grants, positions, and funds by developing relationships and playing ball, not by rocking the boat. And if climategate didn't come out right those awards, grants, positions, funding etc could have been jeopardized for everyone.
And along with that fossil fuel money comes excommunication from academia and exile from polite society and a lot of heat that nobody in their right mind would want to subject themselves to when they could have a comfortable career without the conflict and controversy.
Just like you.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Who is the establishment in this case?
Sir Muir Russell and Lord Oxburgh.
By the Establishment, I do not only mean the centres of official power—though they are certainly part of it—but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised. The exercise of power cannot be understood unless it is recognized that it is exercised socially.
How do they have leverage over all the participants?
They control the politics inside discipline. They have a lot of influence over careers and reputations.
What is their common agenda?
To preserve the authority and credibility of their institutions and that of the larger institution of science itself. Science is a priesthood and just like any priesthood it closes ranks when its integrity is challenged.
Again, they are all competing for the same awards, grants, positions, funding etc. if they are all climatologists.
People who spend a decade studying to make a career for themselves inside academia aren't natural born world shakers, science isn't the cutthroat world you seem to imagine it is. In that line of work people get awards, grants, positions, and funds by developing relationships and playing ball, not by rocking the boat. And if climategate didn't come out right those awards, grants, positions, funding etc could have been jeopardized for everyone.
Then there is also fossil fuel money for any climatologists who wish to claim that ACC is incorrect.
And along with that fossil fuel money comes excommunication from academia and exile from polite society and a lot of heat that nobody in their right mind would want to subject themselves to when they could have a comfortable career without the conflict and controversy.
I found it heavy on opinion and light on facts.
Just like you.
Socialism without freedom is fascism.