Miranda Devine is a columnist with The Sydney Morning Herald. Unintentionally, she raises a fundamental question about the supposed political neutrality of science.
Her latests column is regarding a conference of scientists in New York. The scientists were meeting on the subject of global warming. It is surprising difficult to dig the information out of article written by a professional writer.
For example, what organization held the conference? The Heartland Institute is based in Chicago and has existed for twenty-five years. The New York Times article by Andrew C Revkin, referred to by Devine, as ” a nonprofit group seeking deregulation and unfettered markets “. Keith Johnson in The Wall Street Journal is sceptical about the funding that Heartland has previously received from ExxonMobil.
There website home page has a major link to “Tobacco” and an article which evokes “the torches of freedom” which suggests it is not the air we share but the individual’s right to choice that is important.
For Miranda Devine one of the features of the conference was the participation of Australian scientists who do not accept the apparent concensus among climate scientists of global warming. When I see that scientists do not accept the prevailing results, I want to know what they believe represents a better explanation of the known facts, or in exceptional cases their rejection of the scientific paradigm. For example, Keith Johnson’ artricle refers to Dr W Soon, an astronomer, who believes that the sun is “the biggest driver behind changing temperatures”.
The article identifies three Australian scientists:
Among them were the James Cook university paleoclimate scientist Dr Bob Carter, the former head of the Australian Greenhouse Office, David Evans, and Bill Kininmonth, the former head of the Australian National Climate Centre.
Dr Bog Carter has an entry in Wikipedia and in 2007 addressed The New Zealand Centre for Political Research. In 2006, Dr Carter testified before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works where his case is summarized as:
It is concluded that natural climate change is a hazard that – like other similar natural hazards – should be dealt with by adaptation. Attempting to mitigate human-caused climate change is an expensive exercise in futility.
Regardless, of other opinion, it is clear he still believes that to be the case. Miranda Devine reports:
Carter told the conference on Wednesday that climate change has always occurred and by focusing on futile attempts to stop it by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, we have lost sight of the need to adapt. Countries need to “be better prepared to understand, cope with and adapt to the damaging effects of … natural climatic events and trends”.
This difference is not incidental. It does to the issue of cause and effect, and the practical question of what can and should be done. What is the balance of probability?
Dr David Evans that reducing carbon emissions is unnecessary since greenhouse gases are not a cause of global warming. From that conclusion he logically against “wrecking” the economy by reducing coal fired power station emissions. Miranda Devine reported:
Evans told the conference the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied on the existence of a “hot spot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics, predicted by computer models. But it did not exist.
William Kininmonth’s book Climate Change presents a critique of the models used by the International Panel on Climate Change. He argues that concerns of a tipping point before the onset of runaway climate change are the faults of the climate models. Phew. We don’t have anything to worry about. Those dumb climate scientists have got the mathematics and science wrong.
Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic has his decided views on “climate alarmism”:
“The environmentalists don’t want to change the climate. They want to change us and our behaviour,” he told the Heartland conference. “Their ambition is to control and manipulate us. Therefore, it shouldn’t be surprising they recommend preventing [climate change], not adaptive policies. Adaptation would be a voluntary behaviour.”
Environmentalism had replaced socialism as the totalitarian threat to freedom in the 21st century, he said.
“Environmentalists … do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions: to stop economic development and return mankind centuries back.”
Environmentalists are the new totalitarians, which has some plausibility. Who are the “us” and why should “we” change our behavior, if we do not want to.
According to the article, Professor of Chemistry, Arthur Robinson argues that stopping coal-fired power stations is a form of genocide because of the effect on the world’s poor. It is not the first example. There was the earlier case of DDT.
Richard Lindzen in his testimony before the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2001 concluded:
With respect to any policy, the advice given in the 1992 report of the NRC, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, remains relevant: carry out only those actions which can be justified independently of any putative anthropogenic global warming.
The Devine article quotes Lindren as saying:
“Most arguments about global warming boil down to science versus authority. For much of the public, authority will generally win, since they do not wish to deal with science … Those who are committed to warming alarm as either a vehicle for a post-modern coup d’etat or for illicit profits will obviously try to obfuscate matters.”
Miranda Devine concludes with the question:
But how can the courageous independent scientists in New York compete for attention with climate hysteria coming from such world leaders as Prince Charles, who in Rio de Janeiro this week claimed: “We have less than 100 months to alter our behaviour before we risk catastrophic climate change.”
Australia’s future head of state is on a 10-day eco-tour to South America, aimed at boosting his popularity. He will travel in a luxury private Airbus, delivering a carbon footprint estimated at more than 300 tonnes.
How indeed. Especially when I have heard it argue recently by David Flint that the Governor-General is Australia’s head of state – but that is a whole different argument.
The real question here is I suggest, Is the science in the first instance shaped by political beliefs? This contention is implicit in the contentions of the those quoted by Miranda Devine. Suppose this to be true, then science in now, and never was an impartial search for the truth in which evidence and reason settle the issues.
ELSEWHERE:
Tim Lambeth is on the case of the Heartland Conference – Miranda Devine should give credit where it is due to the blogsphere.
John Quiggin says he has stopped arguing with the sceptics. Now if Miranda had blogged her column, she might have an incentive to be up to speed on this particular debate. As you can see, I have fallen well behind.
Michael McCarthy, Environmental Editor, for The Independent describes Nicholas Stern’s concerns if the “do nothing” option is adopted in the face of the evidence of critical, incremental increase in global temperatures due to rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Miranda did not refer to the opposing arguments since her responsibility as a citizen and advocate do not extend to a dispassionate search for truth. Quote from the article:
I think it’s vital that people understand the magnitude of the risks, but also that they understand that [by cutting emissions] we can reduce the probability of going there very dramatically,” Lord Stern said
Then there is The Economist, frankly sounding the alarm about rising sea levels. Nessun Dorma.
WHAT ABOUT?:
The application of ‘political’ science is not unknown in other areas. Richard Feynman, who was appointed to the official inquiry into the ill-fated Shuttle Challenger mission, after demonstrating that the rubber rings became brittle when cold, took aim as NASA Managements strange use of statistics that attempted to show the shuttle was safe. He said, and the purport of his words might equally be applied to the environmental crisis before us:
For a successful technology [the application of science whether to innovation or public policy], reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.