My position on the matter is probably a pretty moderate one, and since it is not truly what this post is about I'll go ahead and put it right up front: it seems clear that the Earth is warming in recent years; the issue is determining why. I am highly skeptical that we can know for certain that our activities are warming the Earth. There are great scientists who think so, but there are great scientists who doubt it. Either way, it seems that there is at least a chance that we are the cause, and we should therefore start to take steps to curb what we are putting into the air. Yet, since there is strong disagreement over whether we are causing it, I would reject motions to radically re-arrange our society (e.g. tax SUVs or fine GM or move to all electric cars).
That is neither here nor there. What is important, however, is that we keep and open mind to those who have an opposing view to whichever we hold. As I said, there are great scientists on each side, and therefore their research should be brought to light, allowing citizens and government alike to make informed decisions.
Sadly, some disagree.
They think their position is the One and Only. They are firmly convinced that their theory is correct. Once any of us reaches a conclusion we think is supported by research, sound scholarship, and rational/reasonable/sound logic, we should stand up for our position. However, standing up for your position is quite different from banning others from having a voice in the debate.
That is exactly what some in the media wish to do. Enter Dr. Heidi Cullen.
Dr. Cullen is the climate specialist for the Weather Channel (yes, it is questionable if the whether channel counts as "media"). Yesterday she said this on her blog:Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms...If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.Suppose one of Dr. Cullen's colleagues read a peer-reviewed, solid piece of science that cast doubts upon the idea that human activity is causing the Earth to warm. Suppose, further, that said meteorologist finds the scholarship convincing. What would be Dr. Cullen's reaction? Would she openly debate such a person? Would she present contrary evidence and weigh the merits of both positions? I hope she would. But her statement yesterday, simply paraphrased, says, "if you don't support my position on global warming you should be de-certified by the professional organization that oversees our work". In essence, you do not deserve to be recognized as a 'real' meteorologist.
When we shut the door to debate we are always shutting the door on any chance that we are wrong. When we do this it is arrogance at best, and insecurity at worst--arrogance in that we hold our view so superior as to not even be worthy of scrutiny, and insecurity in that we do not wish to face any possibility that our views do not hold up to the light. The latter is worse because it devalues Truth for our own peace of mind and tacitly accepts living by a lie, for the lie is one we like.
If one is truly convinced that the evidence is so overwhelming that the other side should be marginalized, let the power of the facts do the marginalizing. Let people see both sides and see that one is clearly in the right. May the force of the argument--not the force of political decisions--carry the day.
7 comments:
k.r. Glad you brought this topic up...I visit TWC quite often. On several occasions I've seen reports by Doc Hedi and her tone is very much one of "I speak the truth...if you disagree you are wrong." And I too have a real problem with that type of attitude. I am fairly moderate on the topic of climate change...but nothing gets me more fired up than people who drink the kool-aid of climate change and can't stand debate (see Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth...what a pile of crap). I'm ready to accept my responsibility...but let’s take a balanced look at the problem. I have a friend who is HS science teacher...he is of the kool-aid crowd and absolutely refuses to give audience to any dissent from his firm belief that man is destroying Earth. And what kills me is that he always spouts off about how great and true the field of science is because scientists let data lead them to conclusions...but when I present data that is contrary to his beliefs somehow my data is invalid (great research about climate change found at the Cato Institute website). Lastly...and I'll stop rambling...I am also quick to point out to my teacher friend that I have real reservations about people who blindly accept scientific research as 'gospel'. History is filled with scientists that are brilliant, but wrong. See Ptolemy and Copernicus and other pioneers of science...they formulated ingenious theories with the data they had…but data changes and therefore theories change too. For politicians and other kool-aid drinkers to suggest that the current data they cite on climate change is accurate and comprehensive enough to merit widespread and fundamental changes in the way we live our lives today I think is extremely premature. Climate change is a new and inexact science with far too numerous variables...and as k.r. suggests, more debate and an openness to collegiality should rule the day.
I'm not necessarily going to defend Dr. Cullen, but I do want to say a thing or two. As far as I can see the science is in and there's not much real doubt about climate change and its cause. A quick look at this chart gives you a good indication that the average global temperature is linked to levels of carbon dioxide. There's also no question that we've put a lot of the stuff into the air. So, for what it's worth, I'm convinced.
I think you're overestimating the amount and quality of scientific doubt on this issue. You said that there is "strong disagreement over whether we're causing it." If it's strong, then the strength is in terms of voice volume, not scientific quality. If you know of "great scientists" who doubt that human activities are raising global temperatures, then I would like to know who they are. This study looked at 928 abstracts from scientific papers dealing with climate change and 0, nada, zilch, null, none disavowed the idea that humans are causing it. If there are great scientists who don't accept anthropogenic climate change then they're not great enough to put out papers with that opinion.
If you know of good science for the other side, then paste in some links.
But, on to your main point. Should the scientists in the minority be allowed to voice their opinions and findings? Sure, but that doesn't mean they have to be treated with the same respect as all other ideas. Would you present the ideas of Holocaust deniers with the same level of support as real WW2 history? One in a thousand historians might subscribe to that idea, but they do it against all evidence and with great prejudice and political motivation. The historian, just like the scientist has the job of sorting out the facts from the crap.
If alternative theories on climate change have good facts behind them, then they should be heard and accepted. But at some point science has to move on and start building on the knowledge that has consensus. If every scientific journal and organization still gave equal time to all rejected ideas, then science wouldn't move forward and build on the foundation we have. Progress would be replaced with endless discussions between geocentricists and sane people. If the data changes, as has happened before, then the issue would have to be revisited.
Maybe we haven't reached the time for the end of the debate, but if not then we will soon unless some evidence for other causes surfaces. As it is now the few scientists who deny that humans are causing climate change are mostly holding that opinion because of political or economic, not scientific, reasons. And that's just what you're accusing the other side of doing.
Why did you say "the lie is one we like"? Do you think people who accept anthropogenic climate change are happy about it? Again, I think that charge is much more likely to be true for the people who refuse to accept that humans are doing this.
Finally, before I start boring myself, did you know that even Rupert Murdoch and Pat Robertson now agree with the scientific consensus on this?
Is Earth warming: Yes
Do we know why: Partly
What role do human play: Undetermined due to limited time period of scientific inquiry into the matter.
A few links I've visited in the past...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&pid=1441216&method=search&t=meltdown&a=&k=&aeid=&adv=&pg
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6622
Three links that sum up my thoughts on the issue.
danny,
Thank you as always for your thoughtful comment. You raise some excellent points.
For example, one thing we can certainly agree on is your statement: "If every scientific journal and organization still gave equal time to all rejected ideas, then science wouldn't move forward and build on the foundation we have." That is a dang good point, danny. I am not in favor of sitting around and doing nothing. The question is one of degree in what should be done. If there were a spectrum of what we should do, I would be closer to the low end, but I don't think we should sit around and endlessly debate.
I have to say, though, that much of your comments, while good, seem to address things that the post was not about. To summarize my point just for clarity's sake: the dissent in the global warming debate is squelched in a way that is unlike almost any other in the current poltical discourse. It is not necessarily that global warming is not caused my humans or that it is not a big deal--it's that if one looks cross-ways at the topic it is guaranteed that an attack is soon to come.
Your first point: CO2 and temperatures are linked; we clearly put CO2 into the air; based on this you are convinced of global warming. As I said in my post, my position is not that global warming is total crap and we should do nothing. Rather, we should begin to take steps to limit what we put into the air. Again, I don't think this is "junk science". I do think, however, that the opposing voices are being suppressed, which is what my post was about to begin with.
Point two: I may be overstating the amount of dissent on the topic. There is no question that more scientists say that people are causing global warming than there are scientists who question such a position. It is certain that the concensus in the scientific community is on the side of people causing global warming. It is not my position, nor has it ever been, that the two camps hold equal weight. I appologize if I implied anything like that in my post. Instead, my point is that whenever someone casts a doubting eye they way of the concensus view they are shunned/decertified/denied tenure/generally marginalized.
See articles like this one or this one. I conceed that the concensus is with the "people are changing the climate" side. Again, and I'm sorry to keep saying this, but I need to make it clear: the point is that dissent on this topic is crushed. Citing evidence on how many scientists agree and in how great a percentage does not really counter my point: the opposition is not allowed a voice.
Along these lines you compare those who doubt global warming to those who would deny that the Holocaust happened. As I was writing my post I had in mind these people--I even thought about mentioning them. But after considering it I decided the analogy was too dissimilar, and that linking the two would probably be a logical fallacy. The differences between a historical event that was experienced by people (some of whom are still living), was seen by those who liberated the concentration camps, was widely known of at the time but not talked about, was acknowledged by the guards, the planners, the Nazis, and a hord of others is worlds apart from a scientific theory that deals in the world of the scientific method. As you know, history is my bag (even my career), so I might be a bit over-sensitive about linking the Holocaust deniers to those who question global warming. I apologize if I am coming across as harsh, but that seems to me to be a false analogy.
You are right that some deny that humans cause global warming because of "political, economic, but not scientific reasons." Yes, some do that, and yes, I am accusing the other side of doing that. You are a very logical guy, danny, but I am amazed that you do not see that there are very serious and very strong political and economic motives to argue for global warming. Does the government award millions in grants to prove there is not a problem? Do journals publish articles that say "hey, look, nothing here"? Where is the money if there is not a problem? Even if global warming is a problem, there is a great financial and political motive to exagerate the problem.
Here is where my suspicion about global warming is picqued: why is there such hostility toward those who question (not even deny) global warming? Why are people threatened? Why suggest decertifying meteorologists who dissent? Why not just ignore these people? Why not just confidently state the facts and why we need to move forward with X initiative? It seems simple: there is great financial and political motive to make sure that those who question global warming are not allowed to gain any traction. It's the simple concept of "strangle challengers in the crib". If there is any traction for skepticism of global warming that is a threat to the funding of the research that fuels political policymaking, fear, campaign contributions, and the like. Yes, both sides have political and economic motives for their views. The big problem I have is that one side gets a free pass because they are on the side of "saving the Earth". Is that a good thing? Yes. Does everyone who wants to save the Earth have nothing but pure motives? No. Is their science better? Quite possible. I never did, nor will I now say that it is not. But why should we let them lock the door to anyone who wishes to question them? I submit that we should not.
As to your question, "Why did you say 'the lie is one we like'? Do you think people who accept anthropogenic climate change are happy about it?", I think you misread the context (and, as an aside, if you did not misread it, then I think your rhetorical question qualifies as a classic straw-man argument). My statement was not made toward those who believe in global warming, but toward anyone who, on any given subject, refuses to let people with legitiment criticisms be heard--toward those who wish to decertify those who dare to dissent or to get defunded those who disagree or refuse tenure to professors who don't toe the department's predetermined line.
I apologize if that statement came across as a personal attack on the integrity of anyone, yourself included, who believes that humans are causing global warming.
Pelosi announced a new committee on climate change today (good timing for this discussion). As such there are a flurry of articles on the matter. Check out this article and this one and this one.
kr...that might have been better than the original post....well put.
Good article that discusses the discourse about global warming. Highly recommended.
Post a Comment