What To Make of Those Who Predict Environmental Catastrophe
Frequent commenter MarcoPolo offers this response to my recent post on the 16,000 scientists from 83 countries who issued a warning to humankind to knock off the environmental recklessness or face catastrophic consequences:
Scientists are just the latest (an probably most credible) in a long line of doomsday prophets with dire predictions for the fate of humanity and our planet. 1968 saw the publication of Paul Ehrlich’s influential book, The Population Bomb. The intellectual think tank, The Club of Rome seized upon Ehrlich’s claims and quickly arrange for a UN ‘consensus’ of leading scientists who agreed 1977 would be the year “the stork would pass the the plough.” With “irrefutable” scientific evidence the Scientists demanded world governments institute programs to prevent population increase beyond 4 billion, as with 5 billion the Earth, food resources would collapse and never recover…..Each generation throws up its hysterical Doomsters.
We’ve all heard this argument, i.e., that today’s scientists are the “Chicken Littles” of the 21st Century, and that life on Earth is not headed for a sixth mass extinction.
Personally, I’ve never understood this position. Nobody’s saying that everyone who predicts disaster is correct. In fact, literally everyone who predicts disaster is wrong….right up to the point that he’s correct.
Similarly, I’ve never understood the push-back against scientists generally–not that they’ve never been wrong–just that they’re in the best position of anyone on the planet to be right about matters within their domains of expertise.
When we’re told that we’re going to have an eclipse, does anybody walk outside and look directly into the sun? Oh, never mind. Bad example. OK, when we’re told that a hurricane is headed our way, or that an outbreak of a deadly disease is taking place, or that CFCs are causing holes in the ozone layer, who doesn’t take precautions?
Yet these same people will tell you that scientists are wrong about global warming. For the life of me, I don’t understand that.
Craig,
After reading and re-reading your comment several times, you seem to be a little confused.
On the one hand you admit scientists often err and they along with their acolytes and advocates often get it wrong.
On the other hand you argue, “well no, not really, the scientists whose findings and predictions I support are always correct and anyone who dares dissent is a climate denier.”
Scientific debate has now sunk to new depth of intolerance and fanaticism. In 2015 Professor Mark Jacobson and colleagues from Stanford University published a paper arguing the continental United States could economically meet 100% of its energy needs using wind, water and solar power alone by 2050.
The following year, in the same journal (the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) Professor Christopher Clack and 20 colleagues from various universities published an article rebutting Dr Jacobson’s claims, segueing Jacobson had made erroneous assumptions to reach his conclusion. For instance America would have to increase its hydro-electric capacity by an implausible amount to back up intermittent wind and solar etc.
Dr Clack argues Dr Jacobson’s study “contains modeling errors; incorrect, implausible, and/or inadequately supported assumptions; and the application of methods inappropriate to the task. In short, the analysis performed does not support the claims such a system would perform at reasonable cost and provide reliable power.”
Now in normal times it would be reasonable to expect both men to continue with a scientific and scolarly debate.
No so, Dr Jacobson has sued both the journal and Dr Clack, for $10 million ! Jacobson argues that the Clack paper contains “materially misleading errors” and the decision to publish and criticism of his work has grave ramifications for his reputation and the future of the planet !
He has also asked for Dr Clack to be removed from any academic posts and demanded student ostracize Dr Clack and his colleges!
Micheal Mann the Penn State climatologist famous for inventing the “hockey stick” graph promoting the notion that planetary temperatures spiked in the 20th century after a Golden Age of stasis, has also issued litigation against critics, demanding they be silenced.
It would appear Mann lawsuits have run into difficulties and Mann has missed several deadlines to produce evidence supporting his claims.
This is the problem with politicizing science, and turning scientific theories into new quasi-religions.
Polls in the UK reveal public concern over climate change has dropped steadily from 82% in 2005 to 52% today. Largely as a result of scientific evidence Global warming is proving slower and less harmful than alarmist models predicted.