Do Climate Scientists Work at the Behest of Politics and Popular Opinion?
Predictably, the world of climate change mitigation has taken on a frightening new dimension. The Trump administration has announced that it will be taking aim at “politicized science,” the oft-spoken but never documented concept that tens of thousands of the world’s top scientists have conspired to perpetrate a hoax on our civilization, ostensibly in exchange for research grants. What’s really going on, of course, is the dismantling of environmental protection, providing corporate polluters with free reign.
I’m reminded of a lecture at the University of California at Santa Barbara about a year ago, in which the speaker’s premise was that climate scientists had become the pawns of there political masters. Unfortunately, there was no Q&A session at the end, otherwise I would have been delighted to hand this guy his head in front of the few hundred people in the audience as follows:
So, without a shred of proof, you’re impugning the integrity of thousands of university professors and independent scientists who have spent their entire lives studying atmospheric phenomena and feel a deep conviction that they need to prevent a global catastrophe. That’s so utterly outrageous and disgraceful that UCSB should feel deep shame for promoting such baseless lies. I think the administration owes an apology to the entire scientific community and to every single person in this auditorium.
(I did write this in a letter to several top players at UCSB.)
Would raising my voice in front of a small audience changed anything (except making a spectacle of myself)? Maybe not, but now we have this whole subject played on the world stage, rather than a smallish forum in California. These are dangerous times.
Craig,
I agree with you. I did a bit of research on the Internet and learned that even around the year 1860 there had been studies about the ability of different gasses to absorb different wavelengths of visible light and infrared. Way back then some scientists knew that CO2 would have global warming effects although science at that time had no way to predict its magnitude or how much the burning of fossil fuels would increase. That was pure science completely uninfluenced by any political or social considerations.
Since then there have been many studies which have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that global warming is real. There are still unknown factors which make it impossible to predict the effects with precision. Thus, the effects could be either much greater or much less than predicted. However, the potential consequences are so great that it would be irresponsible to ignore them.
Perhaps working to limit global warming could be compared with buying home insurance. Most of us have insurance on our homes. We don’t expect our homes to be destroyed and most of us who have insurance will never collect one dime from the insurance companies. But the possible cost of a loss is so great that we are unwilling to accept the risk, so we pay for insurance. In the case of global warming, the potential cost of the consequences is so great that it is practically unimaginable. Even a 5% risk of serious consequences would be excessive, but probably the risk is far greater than that. For that reason, we must work to prevent it.
Part of the problem is that people tend to be very poor at evaluating and managing risk. For example, some people are afraid to travel by air because of the risk of a crash caused by a terrorist. But when the risk is rationally evaluated, it turns out to be exceedingly smaller than other risks which we daily accept. Some people, out of fear, avoid tests for life-threatening medical conditions. Of course that is irrational. Such people cannot be expected to be rational about the risks of global warming.
Perhaps our schools should teach people how to evaluate and manage risks rationally.
In the US, schools are more about indoctrination than encouraging personal and independent growth. How to think logically, rationally putting aside fears and emotions takes a far lower priority to knowing a useful skill set including the ability to accept authority. Undermining education has been a cornerstone in the mess this social experiment called America has achieved.
It is interesting that denying climate change, where it is sincere requires both a rejection of scientific authority and an acceptance of a kind of tribal leadership. Maybe it is just an extension of some high school group mentality to pick on the nerds. On an even more basic level humans do seem to have a tendency to destroy what they can’t understand or use.
Craig,
“Scientist” is such a general, and subjective term. One thing all scientists have in common is they all belong to the human species, and as such are subject to the same flaws and imperfections as the rest of humanity.
Simply acquiring the label “scientist” doesn’t make anyone immune from political bias, prejudice, delusion, ambition, greed,ego, or any facet of human personality.
By placing “scientists” on a pedestal and becoming indignant if held to any form of scrutiny, you do both yourself and scientists a disservice.
Converting science into religion and scientists into priests,or saints and prophets)is a recipe for disaster.
It’s true that a perception has arisen that “scientific opinion” surrounding climate change has been infused with political ideology and opportunism.
Such charges are not without foundation. Global warming, climate change etc, have become the prerogative of vast numbers of advocates, ranging from serious scientists to vaguely qualified advocates,opportunists,ideologues, fraudsters and the simply delusional.
Whole political parties have arisen claiming the green mantle. Yet although exhibiting a green veneer, closer examination reveals a red interior. Fashionable “scientists” have become celebrities and media pundits, while others act as activists for political causes.
Huge heavily funded new industries have arisen, all with “scientists’ employed to protect their vested interests.
Many “scientists’ have elected to work for government agencies, but remain committed to the furtherance of ideological agenda’s.
Elected government never has a mandate to conduct ideological witch hunts or ignore due process, but elected officials have an absolute duty to monitor public expenditure and ensure information is freely and publicly scrutinized.
Only a few decades ago, Phrenology and Eugenics were considered “science”. Until recent times, Homosexuality was considered ‘curable’ and a legion of weighty “scientific” paper were written on the subject along with “cures”. Often these cures involved barbaric treatments devised and enthusiastically carried out by “scientists”.
Remaining objective in the highly charged political and media frenzy of the last decades can’t be easy. Many scientists have felt an obligation to become activist advocates, some from undoubtedly sincere altruistically motives, while others act on less lofty motives.
The only “heresy” in science is to become uncritical and lack objectivity.
” The world of climate change mitigation ” has suffered more damage from the erroneous claims of adherents than opponents.
Joe Public has grown tired of footing the bill for an army of zealous puritans, refusing to accept any criticism or scrutiny. Joe Public is beginning to demand of elected officials a separation of advocacy and bias from scientific information.
What’s so bad about that ?
There’s a ton of hypocrisy increasingly practiced in the halls of partisan administrations and among the partisan rank and file, Craig.
Here’s just a short set of examples from recent public discourse high and low:
‘Human Climate Disruption must be greedy scientists lying to get more grant money, but bribery is Free Speech and it won’t corrupt our Public Servants at all.’
‘Our Constitution is sacred, but it’s not a problem when politicians shred big sections of it to keep us “safer” from the terrorists our militant foreign policy helps recruit.’
‘Making religion into law is dangerous oppression in foreign countries, but it’s a fine idea here at home, as long as it’s my religion.’
‘Personal freedom for all humans is the highest ideal, except when it comes to your bedroom, your body and your birth control.’
‘Embryos must be protected by the government at all costs, but corporations can do what they like with children.’
‘Over half of marriages between a man and a woman fail, and homosexuals are too promiscuous, but letting a tenth of the population who are gay marry each other is a huge threat to the entire institution of marriage.’
Perhaps there will always be a segment of the population driven by self-interest or misguided belief to promote such hypocrisies.
It’s up to the rest of us to illustrate and circulate important data, and to call out and oppose logical fallacy and rhetorical artifice whenever they appear in the public sphere.
Great stuff here, Cameron.