Thoughts on Handling Conflicts of Interest

Following the popular refutation of the false analogy between the medical doctors and “climate science communicators”, this post addresses another favorite subject of the climate alarmists.

The conflict of interest.  Like it or not, real experts do typically have conflicts of interest, or at least an appearance of one.  For example, medical doctors diagnose illness, recommend treatment, and perform the recommended treatment.  This creates a real and strong conflict of interest. As patients, many of us are aware of that and address it by one or more of the following: trust the doctor’s integrity, rely on the doctor’s accountability, or seek a second opinion. 

Climate alarmists made accusing their opponents of conflicts of interest their main argument, and use it without regard to the facts.  But what about themselves?  Climate alarmists have a uniquely strong conflict of interest because the majority of them have their entire income derived from the sources that advance climate alarmism.  And there are no mitigating factors:

  • They lack honesty; their continuous association with Michael Mann and other uncovered frauds is positive proof of that.

  • They are immune from accountability or believe themselves to be immune.

  • There is no counterweight to their conflict of interest.

Finally, they go to extraordinary lengths to prevent anyone from giving a second opinion, and dissuade their “patients” from even seeking a second opinion.  And they have a central body called Climate Action Network that was created explicitly to create a single narrative (“to speak in one voice”), so none of the few scientists among the alarmists would accidentally utter a second opinion.