re-configured section<\/b><\/span> from the following passage (“How to tell sceptics from deniers”) that was originally about the climate change debate.<\/p>\nThe re-write was taken by the Pundit using artistic license to highlight the way in which environmental activists often choose different standards of debate according to whatever rhetoric suits their political convictions.<\/p>\n
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.<\/p>\n
In fact, Pundit ascribes to open-minded scepticism, and sees dogmatic denial as pointless and unintelligent, whatever the issue.<\/p>\n
(Mis-)Quoted passage:<\/p>\n
How to tell sceptics from deniers<\/b>
Scientists should, by nature, be sceptics. They should take nothing for granted and form judgements only on the basis of evidence. And they should be prepared to change their minds if different evidence conflicts with their opinion. But there is a big difference between what is desirable and what happens in practice. The debate continues to rage about what does and does not constitute true scientific scepticism, and the main focus of this debate is, hardly surprisingly, climate change.<\/p>\n
According to an opinion article by three authors from the University of Edinburgh published in Nature (Vol 464; page 673), ‘sceptics and deniers of climate change should not be confused’. The trouble is, the distinction is not an absolute, objective one; one man’s rational scepticism is another’s rampant denialism. The authors of this particular article (Jeremy Kemp, Richard Milne and Dave S Reay) nail their colours firmly to the mast in their opening paragraph:<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n‘Climate-change denial could have disastrous consequences, if it delays global action to cut carbon emissions. Denialism is gaining popularity because people have difficulty differentiating deniers’ twisted arguments from the legitimate concerns of genuine sceptics. We must stop deniers presenting themselves as the rightful regulators of scientific debate.’<\/span><\/b><\/p>\nWhat, we might ask, constitutes a ‘twisted argument’? In the authors’ words: ‘Deniers use strategies that invoke conspiracies, quote fake experts, denigrate genuine experts, deploy evidence selectively and create impossible expectations of what research can deliver. . . By contrast, scepticism starts with an open mind, weighs evidence objectively and demands convincing evidence before accepting any claim.’<\/p>\n
Put like that, who could disagree? But implicit in this article is the understanding that the evidence is compelling enough to attempt to rejig the global economy and remove the human influence on natural systems as far as possible. Scepticism is acceptable as long as it relates to details, but anything which might lead to doubt about the central tenets of belief is beyond the pale and must be suppressed.<\/p>\n
In this highly polarised debate, both extremes have been guilty of the sins of supposed deniers. Conspiracy theories? On one hand, the ‘denial industry’ is said to be funded by Big Oil, with no credence given to the reality that there are plenty of independent (and unpaid) thinkers who question the orthodoxy, on the other, the ‘climate change industry’ is the purview of a clique of politically motivated activist scientists, despite the evidence that large numbers of perfectly rational academic scientists also subscribe to the broad picture of AGW. Deploy evidence selectively? Is pointing out the poor correlation between temperature of the upper troposphere with the predictions of the GHG hypothesis worse than seizing on any evidence of warming and using it to repeat the message that only humans can be to blame?<\/p>\n
Far healthier would be a proper dialogue between those with legitimate, evidence-based criticisms of mainstream science (and, despite the attempts at marginalisation, there are plenty of them) and those who are persuaded by the evidence for AGW but who are prepared to be open-minded. Unfortunately, the media headlines have tended to be captured by those who shout the loudest and this can only increase the polarisation.<\/p>\n
In the meantime, opinions such as that in the Nature article seem to be part of a counter-offensive by the global warming lobby. Having been unable to steamroller critics into submission, they now recognise that they have to engage to some degree. But this has largely (and unsurprisingly) taken the form of acknowledgement that minor mistakes have been made coupled with renewed assertions that the enhanced greenhouse effect has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be causing an upward trend in average global temperature. The article by Kemp et al seems to be an attempt at appearing sweetly reasonable – by distinguishing between sceptics (good) and ‘deniers’ (bad) – while actually implicitly branding anyone outside the mainstream as a ‘denier’. Perhaps we should be surprised that Nature should print something like this, at least without a counter-balancing viewpoint, but unfortunately the leading journals seem also to classify all who have rational doubts about AGW as ‘deniers’.<\/p>\n
The warfare seems set to continue, but there seems to be no sign of public opinion firming in support of the IPCC view on climate change. Without that, it is going to be almost impossible for democratic governments to do anything very meaningful to cut carbon dioxide emissions apart from investing in nuclear power and R&D projects on a range of power-generation and energy-saving options. But that will not stop them continuing to levy new ‘green’ taxes while they can.<\/p>\n
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 0WS
Tel: +44 1223 421242<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"