More "Anti-Science" McCarthyism
On a planet reeling from global warming and desertification, we will have billions more people to feed. We will be rationing food, all right. And water. And arable land. Most of our meaningless national political fights will be replaced by a very meaningful global fight for survival.
Good grief, there they go again. If you disagree with the progressive political view, er, I mean, the "scientific consensus," you are branded as "anti science." Another in a wearying series of cases in point is today's hysterical rant about global warming by Joseph Romm in Slate. From his column:
Conservatives can't stop the impending catastrophe with anti-government rhetoric. But they can prevent progressives and moderates from stopping it by blocking aggressive climate legislation. Progressives and moderates will need all their political skill and tenacity to overcome the obstructionism of the anti-science, anti-technology conservatives. This is unlike any previous political fight; it is a fight to save the health and well-being of the next 50 generations, a fight to preserve our way of life. Losing is not an option.
Don't get me wrong: I don't want to get into a discussion about the merits of the man made global warming hypothesis. (That is what it is, it isn't a fact.) I have an opinion about that, but it isn't an informed opinion and moreover, it is beyond the scope of SHS.
But misusing science by turning its name into a political bludgeon is something we do discuss here because I have seen it in the cloning and other debates in which I engage. Just as it is not anti science to oppose human cloning research, it is not anti-science to have a different opinion about global warming than Al Gore or James "jail the oil executives" Hanson, or indeed, having a different view than the international "scientific consensus." Moreover, holding onto and fighting to prove heterodox views is an essential part of the scientific process, and from what I have read, many very credible climatologists question global warming in general, and the Gore-type hype about 20 foot sea level increases in specific. And they have credible facts to back them up, such as no overall increases in temperatures for about ten years and a good Arctic freeze this year restoring ice levels to more normal levels. These heterodox thinkers might very well be wrong, but that is not the same thing at all as being anti-science.
But conflating the goals of progressive politics with science--as Romm does in his demagogic column--is an abuse of science, which ideally should be apolitical. And it is sheer demagoguery of the McCarthyite stripe.
Moreover, it doesn't work. You can't force people to believe you, particularly when the evidence is mixed. Screaming that the sky is falling and jumping up and down is not going to change any minds. Even the Brits, who have had this stuff shoved down their throats for many years just aren't buying. Does that make them anti-science too?
So a word of advice to Joseph Romm: Get a grip.
Labels: Science as Politics
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:11 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
I believe Michael Crichton was trying to make a similar point in his novel "State of Fear," which featured a group of people trying to manufacture eco-disasters in order to advance their aims. Crichton said it was supposed to be about fear-mongering, not global warming.
Don't you think, though, that the same point could be made against the folks currently using the fear of terrorism to advance their ideologies? Certainly there is a threat of indeterminate scale from terrorists, but raising a tiny and impoverished country like North Korea to the level of a world-wide threat is ludicrous compared to the threat of nature-based perils like tsunamis, floods, and hurricanes.
padraig: Thanks for your presence here at SHS.
I saw Crichton give a speech in SF on this stuff and he was stellar. But terror politics is an inapt comparison. The difference between what the post addresses and the arguments about the war on terror is that the latter is definitionally political, whereas the "anti science" charge is politics pretending to be science.
A couple of things make this argument specious.
One, there is no global warming. I'm not a scientist, but I have enough knowledge to know that the earth goes through cycles, just as the sun does. So what's happening is we're recording more data than yore, so we more plainly see the cycles.
That brings me to two: there is no climate change, either. Again, it's all cyclical, we're just more able to see it with the plethora of data available to the masses, the masses that don't have the training or intelligence to analyze things (education, or more accurately, indoctrination by the social(ist) liberals is for another blog).
A couple of things make this argument specious.
One, there is no global warming. I'm not a scientist, but I have enough knowledge to know that the earth goes through cycles, just as the sun does. So what's happening is we're recording more data than yore, so we more plainly see the cycles.
That brings me to two: there is no climate change, either. Again, it's all cyclical, we're just more able to see it with the plethora of data available to the masses, the masses that don't have the training or intelligence to analyze things (education, or more accurately, indoctrination by the social(ist) liberals is for another blog).
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home