Ryan ChartrandIn the battle to prove or disprove the existence of anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming (AGW), a battle which often orients along the cultural left and right, I must confess that I have little vested in furthering either side’s campaign. I contentedly join the ranks of elite weathermen everywhere in my unequivocal conviction that tomorrow’s weather will be the same or different.
But I must confide that I am unabashedly critical of many of the global warming theorists and their lesser, non-scientific apologists.
For starters, I am routinely disappointed by the storm that is unleashed when some plucky soul dares to opinionate a cautious hesitancy regarding the veracity and assuredness of man-made global warming (recent historically cold decade notwithstanding). Without fail, such opinion pieces prompt small armies of those who consider themselves (accurately or not) the dutiful vanguard of the scientific community to rise in concerted opposition to such “un-scientific” thoughts. Now, I have no problem with dissenting opinion, but it is the way in which many of the ostensibly “scientific” community express their differences which is troubling.
It seems an uncharacteristically ignoble approach for anyone within the scientific community to take. Isn’t the hallmark of the scientific method a critical and undying skepticism, a willingness to not only test, but also refute hypotheses? Is it not this unbiased and unselfish approach to the pursuit of truth, at whatever costs, the very thing that makes the scientific method, and scientific results generally, trustworthy, or, at the very least, meriting further investigation?
But it seems that many who claim to support global warming are most resolved upon a single point of the global warming theory; that point being that the theory itself never be called into serious question. Rather the favored defense tactic seems to be to deride anyone who expresses doubt as being horrifyingly simplistic and uninformed, while little attention is given to reckoning the disputing facts themselves. Such a technique, the ad hominem attack, is one of the lowest and least respectable forms of argument. And an argument that employs this device solely is one which attempts to shirk the duty of debating the merits of the argument and, instead, attack the arguer.This is an ugly and dirty method which surely shames bona fide members of the scientific community.
But there is another method which nearly drips sweet innocence. This popular, if foolish, method utilizes the safety-in-numbers approach. This approach has global warming defenders citing the UN IPCC study as the basis for their firm conviction that global warming is a real and present danger which enjoys the consensus of all the world’s finest scientists. Of course, when the above acronym is translated to its full, impressive length, the cause of this mistaken belief is a bit more understandable. The UN IPCC translates to the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change. The first two words alone might easily confuse someone unfamiliar with the UN into believing that an opinion piece by the UN testified to the opinion(s) of a world of nations united. Of course, one need look no further than the international section of the newspaper to seriously question this absurd oxymoron. The second grouping of letters is similarly misleading in that it lends to the idea that the study under discussion was authored and supported by an international panel on climate change.
Actually, these notions of universal and international consensus among scientists are quite untrue. They were untrue at the time of the first acclaimed IPCC report, and have grown even more untrue with the passage of time. First, around 130 scientists authored the report, a little more than usual, but hardly the earth-shattering consensus that many seem set on believing.
Secondly, the meeting of the minds at IPCC lately has hardly been universal or harmoniously gravitating towards support of global warming. Recent years have seen many prominent scientists break ranks with the IPCC, citing the insularity and unscientific dogmatism that have come to taint the IPCC’s methods. Hundreds and even thousands more have become global warming “deniers.”
Despite popular legend, there are many hurdles to accepting the soundness of global warming that any reasonable person is perfectly entitled to ponder and dispute. But suppose dispute was futile. Suppose we adopted Barack Obama’s fiction, wherein “Delay is no longer an option; denial is no longer an acceptable response.” I think any self-respecting American would be deservedly offended by such a statement. We do not like being told what to do, even less what to believe. Obama purports to do both. That alone is offensive.
But imagine that the doom of global warming were truly both imminent and undeniable. Even then, would it really be wise to trust the salvation of our endangered environment to the government? The very scope and severity of global warming is the best argument for not letting government be any part of the solution. Just look around you. Observe the crumbling financial system, the failure that is our foreign policy, the cruel joke that is our healthcare system and on and on. These are government failures that occurred when government offered to help “solve” a problem. We can do better. Yes we can! (I borrowed that last line from Obama.)
Jeremy Hicks is a 2008 political science graduate, the founder of the Cal Poly Libertarian Club and a Mustang Daily politcal columnist.