The political ‘debate’ on climate change is, to my mind, a misnomer. The narrow minded ostracization of the opposing group (those who question climate change or man’s influence on recent climate change) has made claims of a rigorous scientific discussion simply farcical. The point is forced that, “the science is in”,[1] end of story.
Sweeping generalizations and pettiness prevail in the climate change discussion. Instead of using the moniker ‘sceptic’, which would indicate a degree of underlying rationality and judgement on behalf of the objector, more and more I notice the term climate change denier or denialist. Furthermore the terms detractors and contrarians are also employed. These are loaded phrases that are engaged for the purposes of negative association and bigotry.
The rise in use of the term denier is particularly worrying. Associatively, the term denier has most historical and political resonance with Holocaust denial. By using the same term to refer to those whose opinion is that climate change is either not happening, or is a phenomenon unaltered by mankind’s activities, a conscious parallel is being drawn with anti-Semitic historical revisionists. I find this analogy particularly distasteful. In time the discourse on climate change has been jostled down a particularly narrow path where detractors are subliminally bullied and snidely ridiculed.
The role of any true scientist is to be objective and sceptical. Blind acceptance is the exact opposite of science. However, universities are offered huge research funds by governments to study climate change, thus providing scientists incentives to produce satisfactory complementary results and ensure a steady stream of funds. It would be fairly rational to suggest that the diagnostics are likely to be biased due to human self interest considerations. The recent Climategate fiasco has highlighted the fact that objectivity in the scientific community is sadly lacking.
Interestingly, The Guardian ran piece in March 2009 titled, “Climate Change Deniers: Failsafe Tips on How to Spot Them”.[2] Again association-ism was the order of the day. The piece compared climate change sceptics to Creationists, choosing not to disguise the recurring theme of false equivalence. Ironically, one of the tactics employed by so-called deniers is “...cherry-picking the data. Creationists classically would quote scientists out of context to suggest they disagreed with evolution. Global warming denialists similarly engage in this tactic... But these instances are too numerous and tedious to go into in depth”.[3]
Perhaps the author of that article would like to revise his words in the light of Climategate. More likely however, is that this ugly discourse will continue. While I am not particularly convinced by either side of the argument, I have had to do much independent investigation to educate myself on the research suppressed and ignored in the popular media, shouted-down and ridiculed by climate change upholders. The Age of Enlightenment, which began in the early seventeenth century established reason and logic as the primary sources of authority in science, politics, and all aspects of society. Unfortunately, I fear that if the intolerance of today’s climate change debate (which runs counter to enlightenment think) continues in this manner, a dark age of scientific and broad societal progression may be dawning.
