...so says George Monbiot in his latest piece on global warming (link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry). Here's an excerpt:
"When I use the term denial industry, I'm referring to those who are paid to say that man-made global warming isn't happening. The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid: they have been duped."
I'm so sick and tired of this line of argument...because it misses the whole point of ClimateGate. Monbiot's error is his starting point: he ostensibly lumps anyone with the least bit of reservations about global warming alarmism into the category of "deniers." This is intellectually dishonest and unfair to people like me (and a heck of a lot of other reasonable people too- polls show belief in man-made global warming flagging big-time in the States), who are not deniers, but rather laymen without any real scientific training who see disturbing trends in the recently released emails and therefore demand transparency, clarification, and a reevaluation of the science based solely upon cold, hard, unadulterated facts.
The point, which I have made in a prior blog post, is that the average person has no training and therefore very little ability to debate a scientist about whether global warming is happening and, if it is, whether it is primarily man-made or not. What I and many other people take exception to is a) the absolute hysteria and alarmism that environmentalists spread (and the corresponding idea that we need drastic measures forced down our throats immediately that would be extremely costly and could be economically disastrous) and b) the fact that recent emails show that a highly influential cadre of scientists destroyed raw temperature data, refused to comply with the Freedom of Information Act, insulted and degraded anyone who dared challenge the "consensus", used "tricks" to "hide the decline" in temperatures by massaging the data to suit preconceived notions, actively worked to keep skeptics from publishing in scientific journals, and short-circuited the peer review process. One doesn't need years of scientific training to understand that such acts are blatantly unscientific.
There ARE deniers out there who undoubtedly are beholden to the oil industry, as Monbiot points out in his piece. The connections that such people have to big oil companies ought to be exposed to the public. But to then essentially claim that anyone who, in the wake of ClimateGate, entertains the least bit of skepticism about the alarmist agenda being pushed by the global warming priesthood is simply a fool, an idiot, a simple-minded tool of the oil industry is ridiculous. Monbiot and his buddies are grasping at straws here to protect the "consensus" that they have worked long and hard to manufacture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've thought about this. I decided that it doesn't matter what that raw data says. Both sides will keep bitching about the other no matter what happens. Most modern issues in science have dissenters; there's no way consensus will be reached about this any time soon, regardless of whether or not billions of dollars are involved.
ReplyDeleteThe way I think about it is this:
Is the climate changing? Well, it snows in Oregon more often than it used to.
Is this climate change man-made? Maybe.
Are we polluting a lot? Yes.
Are we putting a strain on our resources? Yes.
Does this mean climate change is man-made? Not necessarily.
Is there a chance that this worsens the world? Very much so.
Is this good? Probably not.
Just in case it's not good, might we want to limit it? Yeah, I think so.
The "just in case" argument is, as I pointed out in an earlier blog post, not entirely unreasonable. Tom Friedman had a good article in the Times yesterday (maybe it was the day before) about how, even if man-made global warming is a 1% chance, we should address it. I'm not unsympathetic to this line of argument.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am arguing is that, since it appears the science is not as "settled" as many environmentalists have made it out to be, the science needs to be reevaluated transparently...and those who challenge the forged "consensus" need to be permitted to air their views too.
The problem is that the hysteria about global warming coming from alarmists like Al Gore is counterproductive. These types attempt to freeze the debate about whether man-made global warming is happening (by claiming it is settled science), and then direct their focus toward policy...arguing for drastic, heavy-handed measures that will likely be enormously costly and economically destructive...not to mention an affront to individual liberty.
I propose moving away from the alarmist position in favor of reasoned, open debate about whether man-made global warming is happening, to what extent it's happening, and how it ought to be addressed.