This point is one we wrote about in our 2006 report on water supply, that the almost religious fervor many environmentalists bring to the discussion around these issues clouds their ability to accept science that may contradict their currently accepted position, which is largely what science is all about, questioning established theories when new information becomes available.
THE STANFORD REVIEW (December 7, 2007)
Emotional Warning
by Elizabeth Lowell
Staff Writer
In a talk on “Scientific Skepticism” sponsored by Stanford in Government in November, Dr. Fred Singer sparked a heated debate as he combated the widespread view that humans are causing climate change. Meanwhile, a mostly indignant audience exchanged glances of frustration and disbelief, bubbling with counterarguments they did not have the opportunity to express. One audience member became accusatory, demanding to know whether Singer also rejected other established scientific results, such the role of ultraviolet rays in causing melanoma. His implication was that Dr. Singer’s stance was unscientific, and almost blasphemous.
Although the audience members likely possessed valid arguments that Dr. Singer did not address, their emotionalism represented an unscientific method of considering the science behind global warming. Dr. Singer affirms in an article in Imprimis entitled “Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?” that science does not progress based on a “show of hands” but rather through scientific “evidence.” He points out that scientific advances often come from a minority that challenges the majority view, or the scientific consensus. The term “consensus” is a political rather than a scientific term, as John Kay writes in an article appearing in the Financial Times entitled “Science is the pursuit of the truth, not consensus.”
Dr. Singer, who has served on multiple high-level state and federal advisory panels and is now President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, asserted that scientists agree that global warming is occurring; they disagree as to whether or not this change is anthropogenic. He referred to “unstoppable global change,” mentioning that cycles of warming and cooling have occurred throughout earth’s history; in the period from 1940 to 1975, the climate was cooling and people were afraid of a coming Ice Age. He further affirmed that the pattern of greenhouse warming predicted by computer models don’t match observed patterns, overstating the human-produced greenhouse gas contributions to climate change. A possible explanation for this overstatement is that water vapor feedback could be negative rather than positive, reducing the effect of carbon dioxide. Solar variability could also play an important role in controlling climate. In observing the correlation between temperature increase and carbon dioxide emissions, Dr. Singer noted that temperature has historically increased before the rise in carbon dioxide levels. He went so far as to argue that a mildly warmer climate could be beneficial.
