Global Warming Shouting Match

I posted a brief commentary on the lack of scientific principles in the global warming debate. Thanks to GeeGuy for the heads up on several more articles that bring home the point even more.

For example, the article, "Climate scientists feeling the heat." Now, even true scientists, who come down on the side of believing that global warming is caused by human activity (as apposed to the doubters I discussed previously, who are being castigated), now have to worry about their credibility because of their theories being stated as absolutes.

One such scientist interviewed for the article, Roger Pielke, Jr., considers the evidence supporting his view "overwhelming." But worries that "if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake." He has reason to worry if he gives in to the pressure of his "peers." According to the article,

A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.
Not surprisingly, this admitted pressure can get far worse. As noted here:
Jeff Kueter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) said "rational and open" discussion of climate change science that includes dissenting voices is in danger of being short-circuited, at the expense of sound science and free speech.
Getting back to the concern in my original post, the "science" is being censored, or worse, directed toward predetermined conclusions. Even "environmental activists have expressed exasperation over the amount of 'strings attached to the foundation grants' that reduce their independence."

Science has tried to set itself apart from religion for centuries by relying on reason and facts, developed, proven and tested by constant questioning. "Skeptic" should be the hallmark of a scientist, not a term of derision. In perhaps the most important, certainly the most expensive, scientific debate of our lifetimes, science is losing its credibility. If science cannot weather questions, it is no longer science.


WolfPack said...

I took a few classes in heat transfer in college and have always been skeptical of CO2’s supposed role in our global warming debate. If you look at graphs of light absorptivity verses wavelength you will find that CO2 and water vapor are quite similar. It is also common knowledge that there is roughly 100 times more water in the atmosphere then CO2. So why is there no talk of a dihydro monoxide tax?

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm, I think you guys should take a look at this. If that doesn't send shivers up your spines nothing will...