The ferocious reaction by the scientific establishment against any voice questioning the hypothesis of man-made global warming is remarkably similar in spirit to the Inquisition.
Is it in the spirit of scientific research to ostracize and to punish anyone who brings new and contradictory evidence to the table?
The Spanish Inquisition was not an effort to discover the truth. It was a means to eliminate any dissent from orthodoxy.
Today's ferocious reaction by the scientific establishment against any voice questioning the hypothesis of man-made global warming is remarkably similar in spirit to the Inquisition.
On one level, none of this is surprising. It's a reflection of human nature. Everyone wants to protect his turf and to preserve his claim to recognition. Science, however, is supposedly welcoming to revision of hypotheses to account for new evidence. In the fields of cosmology and nuclear particle physics, new evidence continually necessitates theoretical revisions.
But not so in the prevailing orthodoxy of climatology. People denying, even questioning, the man-made global-warming hypothesis are ousted from academic faculties, denied publication rights, and fired from jobs.
Historian and scientific theorist Thomas Kuhn famously wrote (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962) that scientists are often as close-minded as those in other fields. When a scientist stakes his reputation on a particular hypothesis like man-made global warming, he will naturally fight tooth-and-nail against anyone who threatens his academic prestige, lecture fees, book royalties, or Federal research grants.
An earlier example was the thesis that movement of the earth's tectonic plates accounts for the configuration of continents. For generations the idea was ridiculed by scientists.
Fierce defense of the man-made global-warming hypothesis is also understandable on a second, broader level.
For more than four decades, Americans have been schooled by our colleges and universities to believe that the United States is an evil empire and that the Comtean and Marxian "laws of history" are moving humanity toward a homogeneous, one-world, scientific and socialist government. Use of hydrocarbon fuels is attacked as one of our sins that must be expiated before entry into the new world order.
The man-made global warming hypothesis is eagerly embraced as a tool to lever the United States in that direction. Acceptance of its implicit procrustean regimentation will gradually transfer political power from Congress to the UN and its IPCC, the consistory of global-warming orthodoxy.
A common reaction from liberal-progressives is that people questioning the validity of man-made global warming do not understand science. Do they really mean that understanding science requires the abandonment of evidentiary inquiry? of the pursuit of truth?
It certainly appears that liberal-progressive true believers refuse to consider the vast array of evidence that contradicts the man-made global warming hypothesis. The UN's IPCC report has been cloaked in the mantel of secular holy scripture.
The UN, of course, is a body dominated by secular socialists and Islamic enemies of the United States. It is in the interests of both groups to see industry weakened in the United States, and American military and economic power along with it. They want to enervate us, much as Great Britain was after the First World War, and to raise the EU and Middle Eastern and Far Eastern nations to preeminence.
American liberal-progressive-socialists welcome such a development.
It is past time, if the United States is to survive in a hostile world, to reassess the hypothesis of man-made global warming. New counter evidence surfaces frequently.
Frank Madarasz forwarded one such piece of evidence from the Wall Street Journal's "Notable & Quotable" feature of January 5, 2009:
Harold Ambler, the owner of TalkingAboutTheWeather.com, writing at HuffingtonPost.com:
[T]he theory that carbon dioxide "drives" climate in any meaningful way is simply wrong . . . Carbon dioxide cannot absorb an unlimited amount of infrared radiation.
Why not? Because it only absorbs heat along limited bandwidths, and is already absorbing just about everything it can. That is why plotted on a graph, C02's ability to capture heat follows a logarithmic curve. We are already very near the maximum absorption level.
Further, the IPCC Fourth Assessment, like all the ones before it, is based on computer models that presume a positive feedback of atmospheric warming via increased water vapor . . .
This mechanism has never been shown to exist.
Indeed, increased temperature leads to increased evaporation of the oceans, which leads to increased cloud cover (one cooling effect) and increased precipitation (a bigger cooling effect). Within certain bounds, in other words, the ocean-atmosphere system has a very effective self-regulating tendency. By the way, water vapor is far more prevalent, and relevant, in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide — a trace gas.
Water vapor's absorption spectrum also overlays that of carbon dioxide. They cannot both absorb the same energy!
The relative might of water vapor and relative weakness of carbon dioxide is exemplified by the extraordinary cooling experienced each night in desert regions, where water in the atmosphere is nearly non-existent.
A great deal, economically and politically, is at stake. Governments have widely identified themselves with the issue, risking failure if measures like the ill-starred Kyoto Protocols are rejected.
This has been particularly visible in the UK, where Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Labour Party has lost a string of by-elections as the public has become aware of the enormous costs – in higher taxes, curtailment of jobs, and in disruption of people's daily lives – attendant upon "green" legislation.
German industry and labor unions, recognizing the potential loss of several hundred thousand jobs if the EU's proposed protocols are implemented, have revolted. Faced with this tsunami of disapproval, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is now backing away and informing the EU bureaucracy that Germany cannot accede to its proposals.
Very little of such turmoil is reported in the United States by our mainstream liberal-progressive media, where the focus is on promoting the authoritarian socialist religion, rather than on economic reality. The American public is still unaware of the weight of evidence against man-made global warming and of the enormous costs to business and to individuals in higher taxes, inflation, and loss of industrial jobs.
Public ignorance of the facts means that the outlook for common sense is not good. President-elect Obama supports forcible implementation of Kyoto-style legislation, evidenced by his environmental agency appointments and by his campaign statement that he is prepared to bankrupt coal producers if they stand in his way.
It may not be in the spirit of scientific research to ostracize dissenting opinion, but it is certainly required by the acolytes of the religion of secular progressivism. In their view, a ‘dissenting’ opinion is indicative of sin on two levels: First; thinking for oneself is heresy! While man is the utlimate authority in the universe of secular progressivism, the unannointed, ordinary man is not entitled to opinion. His lot in this new world is to merely repeat opinion presented to him as fact.
Second; to actually admit heresy publically by expressing that opinion out loud is to stack sacrilege on top of heresy! If the secular progressive society wasn’t so tolerant, this sin could only be assuaged by the execution of the infidel!
Since absolutely none of the annointed has the personal courage to actually carry out a fatwa against the heretic in question; the person in question is attacked ad hominem, and declared an apostate whose verbal utterings are no longer worthy of listening to.
Part & parcel of the secular progressive religion is to deem anyone with a dissenting opinion either as the Anti-Christ, or as pitiable, wretched soul in need of an intervention. Anyone who simply can no longer stand the banishment from his/her professional career and changes opinion in order to get along is hailed as making a momentous breakthrough! For a short time he/she may be publically hailed as ‘returning to the fold’. Their lot is to soon be cast aside, as the acolytes have long memories of those unreliable enough to immediately mime the dogma of the church when assigned to do so.
Thomas: You wrote, “American liberal-progressive-socialists welcome such a development. “. Why do they espouse this point? Earlier in your article you mentioned why scientists will protect their turf which to me means that they do what is good for themselves. The liberal-progressive-socialists will be cutting off their noses to spite their face. We must understand their agenda clearly and fight it with all of our might.
This is hard for me to understand why they would go to such lengths. If they were the serfs of 1917 Russia I could possibly understand why they would want the demise of their government. But when have people such as algore spouting this garbage, it makes no sense, save the fact that he wants attention.
Good article, now it needs shoe leather.
Those who support the Manmade Global Warming Theory do so not so much from scentific evidence, but rather for their need to change the way we live. They are againt industrial development and anti-globalization. The scientific community is divided on the subject, at least to some degree. But the greens and radical environmentals are determined to damn and condemn anyone who disagrees with them on this issue and unfortunately they have great influence in Washington. I will continue to do my part for the environment by eating as many cows as I can.
‘The relative might of water vapor and relative weakness of carbon dioxide is exemplified by the extraordinary cooling experienced each night in desert regions, where water in the atmosphere is nearly non-existent.’
Interesting. Do you have any online-accessible references? (My request is not intended to be snarky, as is typical of such requests).
Cookie,
Well, if you really must have peer-reviewed scientific sources, here’s one discussing the role of water vapor on atmospheric heat. Hm, probably a bit more technical than most care to wade through (I happen to love this stuff), so here’s the short version.
Estimates of the heat trapping effect of water vapor versus CO2 and all other GHGs vary anywhere from 90% to 10% up to about 97% to 3%. 98% of all GHGs are natural whereas less than 2% are man-made ( http://www.globalwarming.org/node/34 ; not in dispute). Of this 2%, perhaps half is CO2 and half is water added as a feedback caused by the CO2 increase (positive feedback though not actually proved yet). There is a lot of speculation concerning even this 1% because it is not yet known how much is the product of a natural planetary temperature rise (warmer water holds less CO2 and other dissolved gases than cold water, releasing any excess above saturation) and how much artificial. There is also the question of time lags between observation and effect. For example and staying with ocean sequestration of CO2, we know it takes decades for the gas to bubble out of the oceans, so we can see CO2 increases even as temperatures fall.
You can get the lay skeptical version of AGW at: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ – but even that is a lot to absorb if all you are looking for is the source of the “night desert cooling” assertion. We do know desert temperatures drop drastically at night for the same reason the heat up so much during the day, because these are areas recieving almost no cloud cover allowing the heat to escape ( http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00251.htm ).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html – source of the original quote that Thomas referenced
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/135 – partially answers question of water vapor’s far larger role, though it admits role of water is poorly understood (as is role of CO2, aerosols, and most other feedbacks)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/ – Dr. Spencer (climatologist) nicely explains why CO2 and greenhouse effect are overstated and how feedbacks dominate the picture anyway; including some unrelated to GHGs.
Probably far more important (and potentially rendering whole AGW argument moot) is the role of nonlinear mechanisms like the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation and heat vent). This, if valid, should kill the warming argument outright because it represents a natural planetary mechanism for eliminating excess heat totally unaccounted for in the climate models (unaccounted because they have no means yet to model it).
This article would greatly benefit by the inclusion of some examples of the claimed “ferocious reaction” which brings to mind the Spanish Inquisition. I understand the author is speaking figuratively and does not mean to suggest people are actually being burned alive or tortured, but some egregious examples of censorship would be helpful. Instead, the author has noted dissenting opinion being printed in the Wall Street Journal and on the “liberal” Huffingtonpost – hardly demonstrations of the opposing view being censored, as he claims. If the “ferocious reaction” the author speaks of is merely people arguing and debating in public forums, this hardly merits mention of the Spanish Inquisition, but is rather a perfect example of quite the opposite.
todd:
Good point. See this article from the Mises.org website:
http://mises.org/story/3283
Cookie:
Sorry, but I have no references other than the quotation itself, which came from my friend Frank Madarasz, a physicist who foremerly worked as liaison between US government scientists and theor counterparts in Taiwan.
See also “Freeman Dyson: A Voice for Reason.”
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/freeman_dyson_a_voice_for_reason/
Scientific paradigm’s are not new. Shifts in the scientific world are like plate tectonics. Nothing for a long time – then bam – everything moves.
This is a quote from 1900, “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.”
Then along came Einstein…
The Mises articles, even if one accepts all claims it makes, does nothing to demonstrate the claims you make.
Todd,
I have a more than a passing misgiving ‘proof’ is going to persuade you; that you are slyly trying to discredit Thomas rather than get information from him. Otherwise, you’d have realized it is not skeptics who need to prove a campaign is being waged to silence dissent. That is loud enough and omnipresent enough anyone with eyes can see or ears can hear it. What should offend the intelligence of any thinking person is the total lack of debate surrounding an issue of this magnitude, one reaching deep into our pockets and dictating the ways we must hereafter live. This should be especially true of the scientific community, but it is there dissent has been attacked most. I wrote on this problem in http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/02/27/a-show-of-hands-one-mans-take-on-climate-change-consensus/. I have made numerous comments within these pages (responding to articles others posted); sometimes documenting this suppression of dissent. Climate-change suppression falls hardest and fastest precisely on those scientists of greatest caliber, integrity and credentials in the climate sciences, many of whom have been past contributors to the several IPCC compilations; whose work was then deliberately manipulated by IPCC to reach a preferred conclusion (http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/ipccreview.htm ) that misrepresents the science. The many complaints against IPCC (and others) are a matter of record and not just speculation. Similarly, there has also been an intensive effort to manipulate the peer-review process to preclude contrarian views finding their way into the literature and purge it of dissent.
Think about this for a minute. A mostly inchoate, but large and fast growing faction is neurotically demanding we take action on one crisis after another, all having as a common theme the vilifying of human industry and a beatific vision of ‘living harmoniously in nature’ (despite no one seems capable of specifying how without reversing 500 years of progress). They have been hammering environmental dogma into us and our children fully two generations. Skepticism regarding anything environmental, however absurd, has become politically-incorrect to the point we are shouted down if we so much as opine ‘this or that emperor has no clothes’. The environment, if not necessarily the environmentalists, have been thus rendered ‘sacrosanct’ and untouchable without unleashing hordes of environment defenders. We even see environmentalists attacking environmentalists where they differ as to particulars. Each successive denunciation of human activity is invariably more costly and far reaching than the demand preceding it; despite, to date, not one of these predictions has resulted in anything quite so dire as advertised.
Tom DeWeese of the Canadian Free Press does, in fact, report one such case of overt suppression. Apparently, Senators Snowe (R) and Rockefeller (D) sent Exxon a letter in October 2007 reprimanding Exxon for its support of ‘climate denying’ scientists, accusing Exxon of having “manufactured controversy, sown doubt, and impeded progress”, and comparing Exxon to the tobacco industry (a not so veiled threat Exxon would be next in the Congressional crosshairs). Predictably, Exxon folded (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/deweese121406.htm ). I have no doubt a little digging would turn up more of this type, but that isn’t completely the point. If it were just a matter of big corporations like Exxon, suppression would be insufficient to keep AGW afloat. Therefore, a much wider net at the grassroots has been spread. Activist groups, many of them funded at our own expense, have worked diligently creating a climate of correctness based on fear and intimidation. If you don’t believe this, try testing the waters yourself. Ask yourself, what happens when we buck the environmentalist trend? What happens when you refuse to separate your trash in controlled communities? Invariably, you will are fined or ‘re-educated’ right out of your Orwellian denial. And, if you proclaim at social gatherings you think global-warming is a load of steamy brown stuff, bet your bippy you’ll be set upon by a swarm of highly indignant group-think drones who never bother acquainting themselves with facts but are absolutely certain you are wrong. How can they be so certain? Because uncle Dan of the mighty nightly news or Katy of the morning coffee klatch would never steer them wrong.
In the sciences, political-incorrectness is similarly suppressed through funding, tenure, and relevance. Scientists refusing to play along find their careers stalled while PC mediocrities pass them by. In industry and commerce, we witness similar mediocrities making the climb upward for no greater accomplishment than being reliably mum or supportive where games are in play involving large sums.
The current demand for action (climate change) will cost, at minimum, a couple of trillion dollars annually for the next decade, and cannot possibly reverse the warming (assuming it really is man-made and not natural beyond our control) more than a few hundredths of a degree. Yet we talk of carbon-credits, fines, initiatives, action and sustainability as though these had meaning. The reason is simple: despite the harm it does to overall wellbeing, there are many winners among the losers. After all, somebody must be pocketing those trillions. A few will be mega-swindlers of the Al Gore ilk, but most are just go-along-to-get-along types pocketing a slice of the pie without giving much thought to what it is they peddle. With so much at stake, how can anyone doubt there will be at least some suppression against those who cry foul? And that it is both quick and vicious. Whether or not this suppression is conscious, semi-conscious or unconscious is less important than recognizing it happens and is widespread. Suppression is invariably by those defending weak propositions, not from those ‘in denial’ of such propositions because skeptics have little to gain and much to lose for their whistle-blowing. We see it in government (as noted above), but more often in the media, academia, public education, corporate correctness, and (more than anything else) activism. Whether it is a simple snub, name-calling, social distancing, media black-balling, career sabotage, manipulating policy, string pulling, or co-opting, it involves the selling of hype; and, if hype, then some degree of suppression must be involved to have achieved the level of bilge acceptance AGW has managed. The bigger the fraud, the more healthy skepticism must be suppressed to keep it afloat.
It has been amply demonstrated, elsewhere, that AGW theory is built on a very shaky foundation. It depends almost entirely on the acceptance of mathematical models, none of which have ever been proved and all of which are deliberately fitted to filtered data supporting a warming trend. As such they represent a ‘worst case scenario’ little different than postulating a comet could just possibly strike the earth sometime in the next 1,000 years. The historical record does support the idea of climate variability but not that it is particularly ‘man-made’. This reduces climate alarmism (though not climate science) to bunk.
todd,
If you can’t understand how things like using special nominating rules to get your ideology represented in the National Academy of Sciences, hauling people before “Scientific Boards of Dishonesty” to discredit them, picking through competing scientists’ trash in search of evidence of conspiracy, or advocating that dissenting opinion holders be stripped of their citizenship, demonstrates the repression of opposition emblematized here by the Inquisition, may I suggest that the fault lies not with the evidence, but the reader?
Another interesting source of information (if, to an American, at somewhat horrifying location) showing the falseness of the GW crowd is: http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0
Pravda!! They used to be the mouthpiece of the corrupt Bolshevik government. Now they’re a source of accurate scientific information. How times have changed.
Patrick,
These claims don’t justify the hyperbole. Also, what of the evidence of industry and government trying to alter or silence those who wish to promote the idea of climate change. We know the Bush Administration has gone so far as editing reports to change findings and prohibiting government scientists from speaking to the media. Yes, people are trying to advance certain political agendas on all sides of the issue, however, we do not have the “scientific establishment” carrying out an inquisition as this author claims.
What does or does not “justify” the comparison (or hyperbole, if you prefer) is rather subjective, no? I suspect that video evidence would be insufficient to draw such an analogy in your perception.
If you can cite one claim of someone being threatened with the loss of their job, or expulsion from their professional community, or a government or UN climate report that has not concluded in favor of anthropogenic global warming, it would go a long way toward the equal guilt argument. And even if that were the case, it would be more reprehensible for the scientific community to be engaging in suppression of ideas given that the scientific community is expected to maintain an objectivity and openness that is not typical of government. “Everybody does it” still isn’t a good defense, even after you get out of grade school.
Todd,
You said “… what of the evidence of industry and government trying to alter or silence those who wish to promote the idea of climate change. We know the Bush Administration has gone so far as editing reports to change findings and prohibiting government scientists from speaking to the media. Yes, people are trying to advance certain political agendas on all sides of the issue, however, we do not have the “scientific establishment” carrying out an inquisition as this author claims.”
In 2006, NASA’s James Hanson loudly proclaimed he and others were suppressed by the Bush administration for their AGW activism. The media was all too happy to echo this refrain and give it substance. While true the administration imposed guidelines for the direction government research should take and how resources would be allocated, that is a perfectly valid function of every administration. Hanson was also highly critical of the Clinton administration, indicating a pattern of having hissy fits anytime he doesn’t get his way. Besides being a NASA scientist of some note, Hanson is a long time environmental activist who resorts to outsider activists to back his plays, including the Open Society Institute. Critics of Hanson also note he was a Kerry supporter who received grants from the Heinz Foundation (a conflict of interest).
Hanson’s main claims of suppression stem from his many criticisms made against his superiors at NASA. His principle taunts, however, had less to do with suppressing climate-science than suppressing Hanson’s highly uncomplimentary remarks at a December 2005 lecture and interview before the American Geophysical Union. Hanson’s work (bearing the NASA imprimatur) and that of others in NASA’s employ have been criticized both within NASA and publicly as ‘biased’ science, essentially pursuing certain objects (e.g., anthropogenic global warming) while ignoring others that would result in opposite policy outcomes. NASA, quite rightly, wanted this to stop. Despite which, there is far more evidence these scientists ignored the administration and kept after these activist objects at public expense. It was only following the government’s public relations reaction that Hanson went public in a blistering attack in which he claimed the government was editing government press releases to downplay global warming. Big storm in a teapot, if you ask me.
In fact, it is not up to Hanson but his superiors what NASA press releases should or should not contain and how far AGW should be pushed as government policy. That does not constitute suppression of science and, if anything, it is Hanson with his terrorist tactics and media support that have succeeded in muzzling both NASA and Bush. At no time has Hanson or anyone else been prevented from publishing their opinions (privately) regarding global warming. What has been controlled is what or how much weight Hanson gives the ‘man-made’ component of warming in official publications; which are not his to decide. That would be like me overriding my boss regarding what I can or cannot tell clients regarding our service policies. In any rational world, that would be grounds for dismissal. Yet, Hanson remains; untouched and untouchable.
I may not fully agree with the policies of an employer, but there are limits to ignoring employer wishes or criticizing unfairness. The unfairness should be substantial and legitimate (however substantial Hanson’s complaint, it was illegitimate because not his to make). I may even have a less than glowing opinion of some of those for whom I work, but this does not give me a right to exxagerate their foibles (or my biased sense of them). If I think my effort squandered, I can bring that to the attention of my superiors in the expectation they will, at least, hear me out and see the sense of my argument. I can also leave and go work somewhere more to my liking and thinking. In the case of public employees, the argument is sometimes made there are public objectives that supersede the administration of the moment. This is, in part true, but only to those objects that are basic to the framework of good government (e.g., reporting a boss pocketing public funds). Another argument made is that as the public is superior to the administration as Hanson’s employer, he was, therefore, simply taking his complaint to the next higher level not having gotten satisfaction at the lower. In fact, Hanson never took his complaint up the chain of command at all, jumping straight to the public forum bypassing chain of command altogether. In effect, he threw a fit and got away with it.
You, Todd, claim ‘evidence’ of this suppression. I have looked into it and given you what little evidence there is of suppression. I find almost none that it was the ‘science’ that was suppressed; only certain ‘rogue’ activist-scientists in government employ. The suppression of which you speak has to do with unacceptable behavior by an employee.
If anything, the obsessed pursuit of AGW pseudoscience at public expense has gone on far too long with nothing to show for it; and should, therefore, be terminated in order to pursue other, more legitimate, problems. But, that is a policy decision that only a government administration can make as guided by the most recent election. For now, it appears we are going to continue giving lipservice to nonsense until more rational heads prevail.
This Hanson ideolog is all about bringing America down to size with the rest of the world. His kind must be met with a simple message, more renown scientists than he do not believe in this fantasy. It must be repeated often and simply with facts that the average voter can grasp, that being what this hoax is doing to his pocketbook. Hanson may not realize what he is doing and could be trapped by what he wants to be true, man made global warming. That would be a feather in any scientist’s hat. He is aided and abetted by the media, who I think (in my opinion), are ignorant and sycophants to the socialist left. The media will one day be surprised to find out that their bloated salaries do not equate intelligence.