More Reason and Evidence Please

Fareed Zakaria had a scientist on his show today whom I've not heard before, Nathan Myhrvold.  When I did a search, this article of his came up, and he explains well how a scientific issue, decided on the basis of evidence and logic, can become a political debate, wherein it becomes very difficult to have a rational dialogue.

One of the saddest things for me about climate science is how political it has become. Science works by having an open dialog that ultimately converges on the truth, for the common benefit of everyone. Most scientific fields enjoy this free flow of ideas.

There are serious scientific and technological issues in studying our climate, how it responds to human-caused emission of greenhouse gases, and what the most effective solutions will be for global warming. But unfortunately, the policy implications are vast and there is a lot at stake in economic terms.

It seems inevitable that discussions of climate science would degenerate to being deeply politicized and polarized. Depending on which views are adopted, individuals, industries, and countries will gain or lose, which provides ample motive. Once people with a strong political or ideological bent latch onto an issue, it becomes hard to have a reasonable discussion; once you’re in a political mode, the focus in the discussion changes. Everything becomes an attempt to protect territory. Evidence and logic becomes secondary, used when advantageous and discarded when expedient. What should be a rational debate becomes a personal and venal brawl. Rational, scientific debate that could advance the common good gets usurped by personal attacks and counterattacks.

Political movements always have extremists — bitterly partisan true believers who attack anybody they feel threatens their movement. I’m sure you know the type, because his main talent is making himself heard. He doesn’t bother with making thoughtful arguments; instead, his technique is about shrill attacks in all directions, throwing a lot of issues up and hoping that one will stick or that the audience becomes confused by the chaos.

Up until about 3 weeks ago, I had assumed that the global warming scientists--such as Jim Hansen, Michael Manning, Stephen Schneider, Phil Jones, etc.--were the objective, empirical, 'scientific' parties, whereas the skeptics were the irrational ideologues.

The 'climategate' scandel and my further reading the last few weeks has disabused me of that notion. I am finding plenty of rational scientists and intellectual who are making every bit as strong a case for some skepticism toward what has become the conventional wisdom of 'global warming' science.

Given that the issues are so complicated and outside my field of previous study, I'm continuing to keep an open mind as I try to find the 'truth'. But I'm glad that debate has started a bit more openly, because the dissenting scientists--and there are many--have a case that needs to be heard.