Posted on 05/11/2007 6:31:55 AM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa
Part 1: Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquistion
By: Rich Trzupek, If you're a Monty Python fan, there's a good chance one of your favorite memories is the "Spanish Inquisition" episode. That bit is hilarious, and not just because of the goofy costumes. What really puts it over-the-top is our realization of how far modern society has moved from medieval times. We've understood for centuries that civilized folks don't need to employ the rack and thumbscrew to promulgate their views. Rational discussion, an unbiased assessment of scientific fact, and reasoned persuasion should be all that are needed.
We think of the contrast between those two approaches whenever we hear people refer to the "scientific consensus" on "global warming" (technically, it's known in the scientific community as "anthropogenic global warming", but we'll stick with "global warming" here) - the theory that humans are largely responsible for global climate change. Set aside for a moment that science doesn't operate by consensus. Consensus decides elections and arguments on the Bear's starting quarterback. Science is what science is. The earth revolves around the sun, for example. And it revolved around the sun even when "scientific consensus" said it was the other way around.
A couple of decades ago you'd have found a "consensus" in favor of communist rule among Eastern Europeans - at least until the Berlin Wall was turned into souvenir paperweights. Our favorite "consensus" was that expressed in Saddam Hussein's last election in 2002, in which he received 11,495,638 favorable votes. That total was 100% of the Iraqi voting population, topping the 99.96% approval he garnered previous to the '02 election. That "consensus" probably didn't bring him much comfort as he was being fitted for a hemp necktie.
Ironically, the idea that there is "scientific consensus" about global warming requires one to ignore a whole lot of scientists in the first place. For example, a recent survey, conducted in 2006, among members of the National Registry of Environmental Professionals showed that 34 percent of environmental scientists and practitioners disagree that global warming is a serious problem facing the planet. 41 percent disagree that the planet's recent warmth "can be, in large part, attributed to human activity."
Clearly "consensus" has little meaning when you have to lean on people to get it. If anything, in that situation, it tends to lend doubt to the proposition in question. The incongruity of the "consensus" argument on global warming first struck me when I read the position of an editor in a chemistry trade publication more than 5 years ago. He said essentially that he had no obligation to publish contrary views on global warming, since global warming skeptics were no better than "creationists". Comparing folks who found scientific holes in an exceedingly complex theory to people who believed the earth was only 10,000 years old seemed a bit much - but as it turns out, his attitude on global warming skeptics was hardly unique.
In subsequent years we've seen the following:
¥ In Oregon, Governor Ted Kulongoski called for the removal of George Taylor as State Climatologist, because Dr. Taylor expressed reservations about global warming. Presumably the governor knew more about climate science than a university professor trained in the field.
¥ Dr. Heidi Cullen of "The Weather Channel" publicly called for the American Meteorological Association to decertify any professionals who did not toe the line on global warming. George Orwell would have a tough time finding a better example of "groupthink".
¥In Denmark, Bjorn Lomborg, once director of the Institute of Environmental Assessment in Copenhagen was convicted by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty of "systematic one-sidedness" in his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist". One of his sins was presenting another side of the global warming question. His conviction was later reversed by the Danish science ministry, which called the original conviction "clearly wrong".
¥ Various environmental groups have called for public humiliation or even Nuremburg-type trials for those who question global warming. That attitude has permeated the popular press, as evidenced by the writing of Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman: "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past, and the other denies the present and future". Associating global warming skeptics with the stupidity and dishonesty of Holocaust deniers is not only insulting, it's childish.
¥ At an individual level, the attitude that global warming is beyond question is beginning to lead to a "Unabomber attitude" among environmental extremists. Dr. Timothy Bell, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg received numerous hostile emails, including 5 death threats, after participating in the BBC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
With regard to global warming, it's fair to say the earth's climate system is so awesomely complex that no one fully understands it, which makes it all the more disturbing when those who follow the time-honored scientific practice of questioning a current orthodoxy are subject to harassment and intimidation. And what makes it even worse is that the current orthodoxy on global warming is almost certainly wrong, as we will see in the articles which follow.
This situation is without precedent in modern times: one set of scientists is systematically silenced, not because they are asking illegitimate questions, not because they haven't been able to develop meaningful data, but simply because their questions and data make another group of scientists and politicians feel uncomfortable. This is science with an agenda, which is to say that it's not science at all. By definition, science's only agenda is to discover the truth and, from that point of view, questions are always welcome. The global warming proponents have perverted science in a way we have not seen for hundreds of years.
The scientific revolution that began centuries years ago has had some stumbles, but on the whole it has been an overwhelmingly positive development for human civilization. When it comes to a complex scientific question like the extent of human influence on global climate, it's natural that citizens would have reasonable expectations of society's scientific professionals. In that sort of situation, everybody expects a dispassionate collection of facts. Everybody expects a careful evaluation of that data. Everybody expects a fair discussion of the meaning of that data.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Given 100 scientists, 59 of whom believe in anthropogenic climate change, if I change the minds of 10 of them, does that mean the science has changed, and you scaremongers will shut up?
Is there a link to that 2006 survey? I have never seen it.
Bring in the machine that goes PING!
Very clever!
Now that we know there’s an approximate 800 year lag between temperature increase and CO2 increase and we look at the CO2 increase that started a bit before the Industrial Revolution and continues into the present and go back 800 years from there, do we find a temperature increase back then that spans a several centuries?
They would like all “global warming deniers” to think of whips and red-hot irons, it seems.....
Another one that frames the question beautifully. Thanks for posting!
To the editor:
It’s time to step up our efforts to fight global warming. Global warming is the challenge of our generation.
This Earth Day, I took two steps to reduce my carbon emissions:
— I bicycled to school, the grocery and my house of worship.
— I washed my clothes in cold water and dried them on a clothesline.
If everyone could make a personal commitment we could significantly reduce carbon emissions, a global killer. Reducing CO? pollutants requires city, state, federal, individual and corporate action.
Please don’t wait for the next ice age before we address this serious problem.
Sandra schuab
Aw shucks - thanks for reading - and the authors will appreciate the kind words.
The global warming movement has become a secular religion which has abandoned science for an immutable dogma that global warming is totally human caused and dooms us all. That religion also has its inquisition and anyone who does not believe the dogma is a heretic. Ironically the global warming religion, like its counterpart in the Medieval Church, is now selling indulgences in the form of “carbon credits” to wash away ones global warming sins. Perhaps what is needed is some independent thinker to nail 98 theses on Al Gore’s door.
That’s brilliant - the carbon credits as indulgences - just damn! I can’t wait to use that. Thank you!
Teaser. Only parts 1 and 2 have been published. 3 comes out May 16. Good stuff though.
Yeah - I didn’t scrool all the way down until AFTER I posted. You’d think typing in future dates to fill out the when published field should have tipped me off, huh?
Other than the choice of weapons, it appears to me that we are pretty much the same now as then.
Thanks for that. Very interesting.
Although it should be noted that the author cites this survey to debunk a scientific consensus. However, the survey is mostly of individuals with credentials as environmental managers and are not necessarily scientists -although they may be as well.
It is still pretty good at presenting an overview and shows that although a considerable majority tend to view climate change as an issue that needs prompt attention, it is not a figure so high as the 99% the left would have you believe.
I tend to be more convinced by the “science is not a democracy” argument.
But that brings us back to the main question. Why the urgency on the part of the left to silence debate and punish dissenters? Why are otherwise reputable scientists veering so far from the scientific process?
I can only think of one parallel in recent history --- the consensus reached on the 'science' of Eugenics in the early decades of the 20th century. We now understand not only the horrific consequences of that false consensus but the fact that it was a politically driven consensus.
..He's a denier
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.