In 2007 Aynsley Kellow published a book that begins with the tale of the khting vor, also known as Pseudonovibos spiralis, a Southeast Asia “cow” that the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) listed as “endangered.” Known from museum specimens, a living khting vor appears ironically, never to have appeared to anyone. The specimens were, in fact, hoaxes, all taken from Asian marketplaces, where khting vor was sold as a cure for snake bites.
Kellow opens his book with some lines from Lewis Carroll’s “Hunting of the Snark” in which a diverse group of people go off in search of the Snark. One of those people, the Baker, disappears during the search:
They hunted till darkness came on, but they found
Not a button, or feather, or mark,
By which they could tell that they stood on the ground
Where the Baker had met with the Snark.
In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away--
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
And that, apparently, is what a khting vor is, a Boojum. Its scientific name, Pseudonovibos spiralis, should have been a cause for concern among the members of the IUCN before they listed the beast as “endangered.” Pseudo, after all, means “false.” I’m guessing that novibus derives from the Latin for “new,” as in the sudden appearance of a “new star,” which we call a “nova.” The species name, spiralis, is a reference to the “spiraling” horns of the beast.
In the late 1990s some scientists undertook the task of identifying the DNA of museum and Asian marketplace specimens. One group found that the Snark, excuse me, khting vor, was related to sheep and goats. Another group found it was related to buffalo. A group of French scientists searched fruitlessly for the critter in the woods, examined the horns they bought in Cambodian and Vietnamese marketplaces, and concluded that the khting vor was a hoax sold as a snake cure. The “cow” was really a “cash cow” sold to unsuspecting believers.
But remember the key point: The IUCN had placed the khting vor on the endangered species list and used it as yet more evidence that the fragile tropical environment had to be preserved. After all, they had “virtual” evidence that among other creatures, the khting vor was going extinct. As Kellow notes in his book, “Pseudonovibos had quickly become woven into the international politics of tiger conservation and rainforest conservation” (6).
Why should we pay attention to the story of the khting vor? Because, I do not hesitate to say, some data used in climate politics are “khting vors.” Consider the consequences.
You’re worried about polar bears, aren’t you? Yes, they are real animals, not Snarks, not khting vors. You’re not worried? What are you, some heartless exploiter of the environment? Think of the little kids who will grow up never seeing a polar bear except in a museum, where taxidermists will have done their best to capture the essence of a living polar bear. Please, have a change of heart. Contribute to the Save the Polar Bear Fund. Or not. Websites like Polar Bear World call the beast “endangered,” but note without emphasis, that, sure, some polar bear communities are increasing—but, hey, their numbers are low. Well, aren’t the numbers of most predators low? It’s the numbers of prey that are usually high, more wildebeest, for example, than lions, more gazelles than cheetah. In a world overpopulated by polar bears, all creatures great or small, including humans, would face their own risk of endangerment.
Kellow’s book is an important document. He addresses the main issue with regard to most environmental science, that feelings play a greater role than data, that defending the cause du jour is more important than questioning it. And because some have discovered evidence of data fudging among those associated with the IPCC, we have reason to suspect that what is really at play is “noble cause corruption,” or “virtuous corruption.” Kellow’s example is the cop who just knows that a person is guilty, so what’s the harm in fabricating a bit of evidence?
That anything turned political is open to “fabrication” is probably most evident in the pursuit of impeachment of President Trump by a political party determined to hunt Russian Snarks. Although no such critters were ever found, many Democrats still hold onto their existence. I note that by way of example because the larger issue here is a world convinced that climate is endangered. Everyone says it is, right? It’s on the IPCC endangered list.
But as I have noted elsewhere, climate endangerment is in itself a cash cow, maybe the biggest cash cow in history. From non-scientists like Al Gore to scientists who are “nobly and virtuously corrupt” many are making money and careers from the endangerment, from their genuine environmental concerns. Whole governments are participating. Whole governments are searching for the Snark. Whole governments are weeping over the loss of the climatological version of the khting vor: The Stable Climate. And whole governments are devoting the resources of individual citizens to the search for this Snark.
When will the search end? Nary a person in power seems to care because the cause du jour is virtuous. Come on, who’s against preserving the environment? Who wants a runaway greenhouse gas effect?
I’m guessing here. Long after the current living generations are gone, even young Greta Thunberg—no, you and I won’t be around to see it—some group of truly virtuous scientists will demonstrate to the masses that many of the data sets were virtual data sets: Computer models, that is. They existed inside computers and not in the actual world. Kellow’s book title says it all: Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science.
In the long run, however, people will continue to chase after Snarks because, well, because that’s what one does when reality is virtual reality. As people become more attached to virtual worlds, they will become less attached to real ones. Snark hunting, khting vor hunting, will not abate as more people search through models and use occasional weather anomalies or trends to declare that they just know, as the suspecting cop knows, that guilt lies where they think it lies. What’s a little fabrication going to hurt? What’s wrong with a little virtuous corruption?
*Kellow, Aynsley J. 2007. Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science. Cheltenham. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Kellow opens his book with some lines from Lewis Carroll’s “Hunting of the Snark” in which a diverse group of people go off in search of the Snark. One of those people, the Baker, disappears during the search:
They hunted till darkness came on, but they found
Not a button, or feather, or mark,
By which they could tell that they stood on the ground
Where the Baker had met with the Snark.
In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away--
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
And that, apparently, is what a khting vor is, a Boojum. Its scientific name, Pseudonovibos spiralis, should have been a cause for concern among the members of the IUCN before they listed the beast as “endangered.” Pseudo, after all, means “false.” I’m guessing that novibus derives from the Latin for “new,” as in the sudden appearance of a “new star,” which we call a “nova.” The species name, spiralis, is a reference to the “spiraling” horns of the beast.
In the late 1990s some scientists undertook the task of identifying the DNA of museum and Asian marketplace specimens. One group found that the Snark, excuse me, khting vor, was related to sheep and goats. Another group found it was related to buffalo. A group of French scientists searched fruitlessly for the critter in the woods, examined the horns they bought in Cambodian and Vietnamese marketplaces, and concluded that the khting vor was a hoax sold as a snake cure. The “cow” was really a “cash cow” sold to unsuspecting believers.
But remember the key point: The IUCN had placed the khting vor on the endangered species list and used it as yet more evidence that the fragile tropical environment had to be preserved. After all, they had “virtual” evidence that among other creatures, the khting vor was going extinct. As Kellow notes in his book, “Pseudonovibos had quickly become woven into the international politics of tiger conservation and rainforest conservation” (6).
Why should we pay attention to the story of the khting vor? Because, I do not hesitate to say, some data used in climate politics are “khting vors.” Consider the consequences.
You’re worried about polar bears, aren’t you? Yes, they are real animals, not Snarks, not khting vors. You’re not worried? What are you, some heartless exploiter of the environment? Think of the little kids who will grow up never seeing a polar bear except in a museum, where taxidermists will have done their best to capture the essence of a living polar bear. Please, have a change of heart. Contribute to the Save the Polar Bear Fund. Or not. Websites like Polar Bear World call the beast “endangered,” but note without emphasis, that, sure, some polar bear communities are increasing—but, hey, their numbers are low. Well, aren’t the numbers of most predators low? It’s the numbers of prey that are usually high, more wildebeest, for example, than lions, more gazelles than cheetah. In a world overpopulated by polar bears, all creatures great or small, including humans, would face their own risk of endangerment.
Kellow’s book is an important document. He addresses the main issue with regard to most environmental science, that feelings play a greater role than data, that defending the cause du jour is more important than questioning it. And because some have discovered evidence of data fudging among those associated with the IPCC, we have reason to suspect that what is really at play is “noble cause corruption,” or “virtuous corruption.” Kellow’s example is the cop who just knows that a person is guilty, so what’s the harm in fabricating a bit of evidence?
That anything turned political is open to “fabrication” is probably most evident in the pursuit of impeachment of President Trump by a political party determined to hunt Russian Snarks. Although no such critters were ever found, many Democrats still hold onto their existence. I note that by way of example because the larger issue here is a world convinced that climate is endangered. Everyone says it is, right? It’s on the IPCC endangered list.
But as I have noted elsewhere, climate endangerment is in itself a cash cow, maybe the biggest cash cow in history. From non-scientists like Al Gore to scientists who are “nobly and virtuously corrupt” many are making money and careers from the endangerment, from their genuine environmental concerns. Whole governments are participating. Whole governments are searching for the Snark. Whole governments are weeping over the loss of the climatological version of the khting vor: The Stable Climate. And whole governments are devoting the resources of individual citizens to the search for this Snark.
When will the search end? Nary a person in power seems to care because the cause du jour is virtuous. Come on, who’s against preserving the environment? Who wants a runaway greenhouse gas effect?
I’m guessing here. Long after the current living generations are gone, even young Greta Thunberg—no, you and I won’t be around to see it—some group of truly virtuous scientists will demonstrate to the masses that many of the data sets were virtual data sets: Computer models, that is. They existed inside computers and not in the actual world. Kellow’s book title says it all: Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science.
In the long run, however, people will continue to chase after Snarks because, well, because that’s what one does when reality is virtual reality. As people become more attached to virtual worlds, they will become less attached to real ones. Snark hunting, khting vor hunting, will not abate as more people search through models and use occasional weather anomalies or trends to declare that they just know, as the suspecting cop knows, that guilt lies where they think it lies. What’s a little fabrication going to hurt? What’s wrong with a little virtuous corruption?
*Kellow, Aynsley J. 2007. Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science. Cheltenham. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
RSS Feed