For those of you who haven’t been following the story (and it has admittedly been difficult, because most mainstream news outlets have largely ignored it), there has been quite an interesting development in the debate over global warming. This past week, email exchanges between scientists who believe in man-made global warming have come to light that cast doubts on the validity of the research being done on this subject and the disinterestedness of those doing the research. More broadly and more ominously, these emails suggest that the integrity of the scientific process may be threatened by some scientists who have staked their careers and credibility on the proposition that man is warming the planet, with potentially disastrous consequences. The emails, which among other things discuss the use of “tricks” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, indicate the necessity of continuing to do research and engage in thoughtful debate about man-made global warming and its effects.
The debate over global warming (or, to use the term preferred by environmentalists these days, climate change- this way, whether the earth gets cooler or warmer, their credibility remains intact) is, as I see it, a threefold one. First off, we need to determine whether or not the earth is getting warmer. Next, if it is, we must decide whether the rise in global temperatures is the result of mankind’s actions, or if it is simply attributable to the normal fluctuations in temperature that have characterized our planet for eons. If these first two debates are resolved in the following way, namely, that the earth is warming and that warming is caused by man, then we are finally confronted with the all-important question of what to do about it.
Based upon these emails, it seems to me that we need to step back and reevaluate what stage of the debate we ought to be focused on. I have no real training in environmental science, so I have naturally, during the course of the debate about global warming, been inclined to defer to the “experts.” Over the past few years, I have been politely and, in some cases, not-so-politely informed that global warming is settled science…that it is a fact, or, as one Nobel Prize-winning champion of the environmentalist cause whose reputation and personal finances are closely related to the outcome of this debate would say, an “inconvenient truth.” But given the recent information contained in these emails, I am no longer completely comfortable with deferring to the so-called experts of climatology when it comes to global warming.
Robert Tracinski, in his recent article "ClimateGate: The Fix Is In", highlights what he (and I) believe to be the most significant and most worrisome aspect of the emails: the fact that global-warming proponents in the scientific community are actively silencing skeptics by short-circuiting the (supposedly) sacred scientific concept of peer review. Tracinski writes, “But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma… If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.” As Tracinski observes, scientists like Phil Jones and Michael Mann expressly threaten in the emails to boycott and delegitimize academic journals that publish the work of global warming skeptics, leading to a ridiculous use of “circular logic” by global warming believers. Tracinski presents the catch-22 as follows: “Skepticism about global-warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in ‘legitimate peer-reviewed journals.’ But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not ‘legitimate.’” Joseph Heller would be proud.
Al Gore and his acolytes have repeatedly told us that the first two parts of the global warming debate are settled. They, along with many others (including policy-makers), have proceeded to the third and final stage of the discussion, urging dramatic , immediate action (even if that action is costly and heavy-handed) to avoid impending doom. But the emails suggest that, contrary to the claims of devout environmentalists, the first two parts of the debate may not be as unequivocally settled as many have made them out to be. A few statements contained in a handful of emails, no matter how incriminating they seem, does not mean that man-made global warming is fiction or some sort of conspiracy being used to push a certain political agenda. It does however suggest that the case for man-made global warming is less than airtight. After all, if global warming is a fact, plain and simple, then why is there a need to fudge the numbers? Why is there a campaign to silence non-believers?
If that last question sounds oddly or even eerily religious, it should. Attempts by scientists to tinker with data so that it will yield desired results and reinforce preconceived notions is awfully reminiscent of the efforts by some devoutly religious types to overlook certain inconvenient scriptural passages and distort others in order to support a particular ideology or agenda. And a crusade to muzzle heretics? It doesn’t take a historian to draw some pretty disconcerting parallels on that score.
There are those who say that, even if the science isn’t completely settled, we should start making changes anyway. If we wait for total unanimity among the experts, the argument goes, it will be too late to stop global warming. This is not an entirely unreasonable position. But when those changes being advocated are going to affect the way we live our everyday lives and have enormous economic consequences, we owe it to ourselves and future generations to base these policy decisions purely on fact, not conjecture or mere good intentions. In the wake of the release of these emails, this will mean engaging in an earnest, three-part debate about global warming. Most importantly, the debate should include everyone who takes the time to become informed on the issue, and that requires allowing people access to the work of global warming skeptics too. If the emails tell us nothing else, they at least show us the potential perils of deferring to the “experts.”
No comments:
Post a Comment