On the Suppression of Dissent

The message and argumentation in “On the Treatment of 5th Graders” was unclear to some. One reader, Andrew, communicated his concerns in the "Comments" section beneath the post. I would like to respond to Andrew’s contentions here so that other readers of The Thinking Man’s Man do not miss my clarification.


Thank you for the comments, Andrew. First of all, I apologize if my message was unclear. Not expecting anyone to actually find this site or carefully read it, I probably didn’t shape my argument as well as I could have or should have.

However, to clarify for those who care, the point I was trying to make in my post was that it's evident to me that there does not exist a consensus or necessarily an overwhelming majority among knowledgeable individuals on both the causes of climate change and the ecological effects of a unit of human pollution. The greater point that I was trying to make was that probably the vast majority of the public is in the dark about even the existence of this debate in the first place, and that the panic in popular and political sentiment over global warming is dangerous for policy.

To illustrate this latter point I tried to provide a couple of examples where two vocal members of the Green movement irresponsibly argue the merits of alternative energy and the evidence for the existence of global warming. The claim that I was making here was that the majority of the public is unaware that there would even be value in challenging Gore’s pathetic claims or the Big Green Bus’ erroneous illustration. If global warming is undoubtedly caused by humans and if Gore and the Big Green Bus fully understand the problems, why challenge them even on their sloppy arguments? All one would get is more concrete evidence.

The purpose of the post was not to debate the merits of each or either side. In fact in the post, I disclaim any authority over the details of the debate, so your charging me as ignorant is redundant. I note that I am not a scientist and don’t pretend to be and that I likely won’t ever understand the complexities of any hard science, let alone geophysics. I also indicated that I fully believe global warming has existed since at least the Industrial Revolution.

What I don’t believe is that there is anything close to a consensus among even the most capable scientists on the effects of human activity on global warming. And to exaggerate them with hyperbolic dialogue and erroneous scientific reports will only exacerbate the present energy problems. Assuming the earth’s climate is not reaching a “tipping-point” in the short-run, the economic interests of Americans in a difficult time for consumers should trump efforts to limit human contributions to global warming until the effects are fully understood and emissions can be appropriately regulated. The most responsible approach to policy is the one that considers all arguments and facts that are as close as possible to the “truth”. In this case, the “truth” about the extent of human contributions to global warming has yet to be established.

I’m sorry that that opinion elicited so much animosity. Though I am somewhat stunned by Andrew’s causticity, as I feel that my position is as open-minded as possible, I can’t say that I’m terribly surprised. This is the dismissive derision I warned readers to expect in my original post. I questioned claims of a consensus and the integrity of the argumentation of two prominent Green activists, and Andrew excoriated me. However, Andrew’s qualms are misplaced, and I would like to address each specifically here.

To Andrew’s specific concerns:

Issue 1

First, the consensus. The IPCC's latest report represents the the published, peer-reviewed findings of more than 2,000 scientists, all compiled together. It represents one of the widest collaborations in the history of science, by some of the most respected scientists in their fields. By citing an outdated article written in 2006, you've missed the boat on the latest news. Update yourself
…
As for your study of scientists from Alberta (an oil drilling province) who disagree with global warming. Well, Alberta is probably a bastion of cutting edge science, right? That's where Harvard, and Princeton, and Columbia scientists count themselves as members? Hardly.

First, of the 2,000 individuals who composed the IPCC’s latest report, most were not scientists, as you claim, but politicians. Second, to hold as gospel the reports of a wing of one of the most corrupt institutions in world history indicates a gross dearth of even basic analytical thinking. Indeed, many of the individuals who composed the report have a financial interest in presenting evidence of substantial global warming. That it was peer-reviewed – possibly by individuals interested in promoting the Green cause – does not mean that it is without flaws or fabrications, minor or significant.

To update you on where the debate now stands, the IPCC appears to be back at the drawing board. The basic IPCC model developed for predicting weather patterns in that 2007 report has since been mathematically discredited by a recent study, which was also peer-reviewed. Problems include flaws with the computer model’s fundamental climate-predicting formulas, as well as the inability to predict the cooling of the oceans since 2003, the rise in global mean surface temperature since 1998, or the possible decline in temperature since 2001, among a host of other deficiencies. Indeed, even the polished, peer-reviewed 2007 report contained major flaws, and the IPCC has had to recant a number of the report’s claims and findings.

And as far as the scientific consensus is concerned, the entire issue of the recent July 2008 edition of Physics and Society, a quarterly journal produced by the American Physical Society, is devoted to scientific debate about global warming. In his opening commentary, the editor acknowledges:

There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion.

This is the position I have taken all along: that there is a debate worth considering and that if politicians come to false or exaggerated conclusions, unnecessarily disastrous policy could result. That there exists an extensive debate within this publication about the principal causes of global warming indicates that the issue is, by definition, still debatable within the scientific community.

I included the Albertan poll of 51,000 scientists merely to show that a very large amount, in both absolute and relative terms, of scientists do not agree with the mainstream opinion of a largely anthropogenic influence on climate. It is the only substantially large poll of scientists taken to my knowledge. While I do appreciate your highly favorable opinion of Ivy Leaguers, that these scientists are not unemployed by Ivy League universities does not mean that they are incompetent. They are professional engineers, geologists, and geophysicists. To me, those credentials merit an opinion worth considering and respecting.

Do these engineers and geophysicists have a stake in opposing the mainstream’s views? Perhaps. If an energy company is their employer, they naturally have an interest in that company’s success. However, to discredit the voice of 50,000 people simply for their residence in an oil-producing region is a bit of a stretch. Abundant coal mines exist in Pennsylvania and near Ithaca, NY, but one would be a fool to blindly disregard the opinion of physicists and geologists from the University of Pennsylvania or Cornell University merely as a result of that coincidental residence. Furthermore, the composers of the IPCC specifically commissioned to produce a model of the effects of human activity on global warming are more likely to have a directly financial stake in substantiating their opinions than the Albertan scientists.

Issue 2

The Big Green Bus' website does not suggest that all emissions from vegetable based sources are equal. If you took the time to read the site you'd realize that, like the article you chose to refute their point, they acknowledge that not all biofuels are equal - that some are bad and some are good (it depends on the process you use to make them). So, strike the validity of your 2nd point.

Again, I am afraid you are mistaken. I am not certain what you have read, if anything, but the discussion of biofuels on the Big Green Bus’ website does not include any mention of the environmental problems the resources present. Read the whole thing. The only shortcomings acknowledged are that many biofuels are economically impractical and that increased production of ethanol may have contributed to recent increases in food prices.

In fact, contrary to your assertion that “they acknowledge that … some (fuels) are bad and some good” relative to oil, the Big Green Bus’ website plainly lumps all biofuels together as being in a group less pollutive than oil:

Plants take in CO2 from the atmosphere to grow, then their carbon structures are burned to release energy. By burning the organic matter, carbon is released back into the atmosphere. This carbon is then absorbed by other plants, closing the loop. Petroleum based fuels pull carbon out of the ground and release it into the atmosphere, making more of a line.

Their claims, in print and in picture, that all biofuels are ecologically better than oil are plainly false.

Issue 3

As for the effects of global warming, you neglect to mention the really serious ones. Storms attract the headlines, but if any large ice sheets melt, sea level rise could force millions and millions of people to be inundated, creating waves of climate refugees. Thats one of the real problems, but by conveniently (or would it be inconveniently) neglecting to bring it up, you've skewed the debate.

Thank you for the explanation, but I am fully aware of the potential cataclysm of a warmer earth. With a masterful command of science, The Day After Tomorrow conveyed that to me several years ago.

You, however, are the one skewing the debate here. You don’t understand the role my reference to storms, floods, and wildfires had in my discussion. Al Gore pointed to recent storms, floods, and wildfires as evidence to rebut Tom Brokaw’s remark that there exists a debate in the scientific community about global warming. I used that comment as a piece of evidence in support of my argument that many prominent activists in the Green movement have presented intellectually irresponsible arguments in the conversation about global warming. I was not saying that the effects of a warmer earth are merely storms and wildfires; I was saying that the existence of storms and wildfires is insufficient evidence that humans influence the climate.

Gore, the Big Green Bus, and many activists like them – such as, evidently, yourself – have polluted the dialogue about global warming by swiftly denouncing any dissenting opinion and/or by contributing to the discussion in an intellectually irresponsible manner.


I hope this clarifies my position and argument in the post “On the Treatment of 5th Graders” for you and other confused readers. I welcome additional commentary.