Is Global Warming Advocacy Killing Science?
I worry that global warming advocacy has crossed the line from science to religion, such that data counter to the basic mantra is considered heresy rather than scientific discourse.
In my review of Michael Crichton's new book, I said I was sympathetic to his global warming skepticism but that I thought his characters and plot were over the top and he was too heavy handed with the polemic, which hurts any action novel. Maybe I was wrong:
We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
- National Center for Atmospheric Research (NOAA) researcher and global warming action promoter, Steven Schneider
More here from Arizona Watch. I do disagree a bit with using the Nature Conservancy as a proxy for all environmental groups. Though they advocate things I don't agree with, the vast majority of their funds go to actual preservation rather than political advocacy (unlike Sierra Club or others). They are actually one of the better examples of trying to use private voluntary action rather than the government to reach some environmental goals.
I have written more on Kyoto here. A good recent article in TCS by George Taylor talking about the panic around arctic temperatures is here.
BridgetB:
Fair enough on the Nature Conservancy. Glad to see at least some conservationists are rational.
And I totally agree that Environmentalism is a religion and not a reason based scientific movement.
December 22, 2004, 2:29 pm