It is sad to report but there has been a cold war waged against (unnamed) against Guy McPherson but without reference against Sam Carana and the Arctic Blog who work has been cited frequently cited by numerous publications.
And a day or so before that.
I
had been wondering what has been motivating Paul to come with so many
videos on this theme recently
The following article by Guy is from today.
The following article by Guy is from today.
My Work, and Why I Do It
Guy McPherson
The
difference between stupidity and genius is that genius
has its limits
~
Albert Einstein
Nature
Bats Last
21
February, 201
People
often ask why I speak and write about abrupt climate change leading
to near-term human extinction. If we can’t fix it, why bother
knowing? It’s unclear who we are or what it means to fix this
particular predicament.
Actually,
people more frequently send me hate mail accusing me of profiting by
lying about our demise than asking questions with civility. It’s
analogous to claiming a fire lookout gets paid by the number of fires
she spots.
I
wish. I wish I were lying. I wish I were profiting. I’m not.
I
have no idea why I am compelled to defend my conclusions, all of
which are supported by abundant evidence. I suppose my inner teacher
believes I can overcome profound, willful ignorance with evidence.
This thought alone indicates my unrepentant optimism regarding the
human condition.
Few
people accuse their oncologist of profiting after she issues a fatal
diagnosis. Once the patient recovers from the shock, he sometimes
thanks the honest doctor. And if said medical doctor misunderstands
the evidence and offers an incorrect, hopeful diagnosis, then filing
a legal claim of malpractice is warranted. Indeed, it’s expected in
the United States, the most litigious society in the history of the
planet.
I
pursue and promote the truth, based on evidence. The evidence comes
primarily, and almost exclusively, from the very conservative
refereed journal literature. I’m not referring to my truth, a
notion rooted in the naively postmodern palaver that we each have our
own truth, and that each version of the truth is equally valid. Nor
am I referring to the evidence-free religious concept of Truth rooted
in patriarchy.
My
detractors include unscientific people afraid to face evidence,
lovers of the omnicidal heat engine known as civilization, and others
who lack the credentials necessary to collate and organize relevant
evidence. Few people turn to their plumber for advice about cancer.
Yet many people seek and believe diagnoses about climate change from
wholly unqualified sources.
I’m
routinely accused of horrible intentions and terrible acts. There is
no supporting evidence. None is needed when the hate is spewed online
from a culture dominated by willfully ignorant, small-minded people
with questionable intelligence writing for an audience with similar
talents. I won’t even venture into the topic of trolls paid to
promote disaster capitalism at every cost.
Were
I better-known, I suspect I’d make the list of finalists among the
most-hated people in the world. It’s a goal, in any event.
That’s
a joke, fools and trolls. If I don’t point it out, every time,
it’ll be turned against me.
As
I’ve been saying for years, people are stupid. Most of ’em, most
of the time.
Among
the offenders are offensively ignorant and ill-informed, office-bound
modelers who inexplicably believe field observations ought to fit
models, rather than the reverse. Among the worst offenders are
armchair prognosticators with video cameras and the ability to post
online their ever-changing opinions unattached to evidence. Field
observations and refereed journal literature are anathema to those
who promote the dominant narrative. The latter notably include the
folks who benefit from the omnicidal heat engine affectionately known
as civilization.
The
best critique of my work is a three-year-old series of ad hominem
attacks disguised as a blog post. It was written by a self-proclaimed
science educator without a Ph.D. degree. No thought is given to his
lack of credentials, his motives, the unprofessional quality of his
analysis, or the dated nature of his work. Other critics post on
blogs or selfie videos, presumably to counter the hundreds of journal
articles on which I rely.
My
work relies upon evidence. It is rooted in reason. I am a
rationalist. Contrary to the cries from my critics, ever eager to
attack the messenger rather than evaluate the message, I am not
mentally ill. The entire culture is insane. The inmates, who are
operating the asylum, believe they are the sane ones.
I’ve been deemed insane since voluntarily leaving my high-pay, low-work position at a major research university. Taking action based on principle, rather than money, seems crazy to people afflicted with a bad case of the dominant paradigm.
In
contrast to my critics, I do not benefit from my work in any way. It
has cost me thousands of dollars for every dollar I’ve received in
return. It has cost me the ability to do what I love. It has cost me
everybody I loved from my former life.
I am motivated by evidence, as I wrote two years ago. In presenting the results, in simple language, I make the evidence accessible to the public. For this, I am insulted. My work is disparaged. I am attacked incessantly.
My
attempts to respond kindly sometimes fail, although I can and do
distinguish between being nice and being kind. In contrast to the
mass of humans I encounter, I recognize niceness and kindness are
sometimes mutually exclusive.
The
essay linked above from two years ago is sufficient. It lacks
discussion of my inner teacher, constantly struggling to get out.
I’ve written and spoken extensively about that topic. No further
elucidation is warranted.
Indeed,
no further elucidation is warranted regarding my extensive body of
work. None will suffice for those who deny evidence. I will continue
my attempts to disengage from discussions operating strictly within
an evidence-free zone, recognizing that such a step will nullify
nearly every prospective conversation.
Hatred
will continue to flow my way not because of evidence, but rather due
to the opposite: It is more comfortable to deny evidence than to
ponder one’s own death. The processes of cultural “dumbing down”
and acceptance appreciation of ignorance and stupidity have led to
our demise. How could it have been otherwise?
The usually slightly unhinged Humpty Dumpty gives a reasonaby balanced synopsis.
Paul Beckwith vs. Guy McPherson: The Apocaloptimist vs. the Doomers
The usually slightly unhinged Humpty Dumpty gives a reasonaby balanced synopsis.
Paul Beckwith vs. Guy McPherson: The Apocaloptimist vs. the Doomers
