Recently a very large number of nations entered into a
climate change agreement. Simply
entering into the agreement will not close or end discussions on the subject no
matter how much some people want it to. The
biggest problem with the climate change debate is and has been the debate
itself, or lack thereof.
First off let me preface my remarks by noting I am not
talking about any merits or facts for or against climate change, global
warming, global cooling, or any other weather phenomenon. The only thing I will remark on this at this
time is that climate always changes in different ways and has for as long as we
have records or evidence for.
So why the discussion now?
That is really the ultimate question in all of this: Why?
My first “Why” is to ask why some people are so ready to
limit debate? Science is about testing
and retesting. It is about reevaluating
and being able to share the information with other scientists who can reproduce
exactly what the other scientist or team of scientists have done. That is not what we have here. To quote one famous leader “The Science is settled”. To me, that is one of the most ludicrous
statements ever made, as having science be “settled” goes against everything
that science is – exploration, experimentation, and the ability to reproduce
results. Science is not facts by consensus,
but proof by evidence.
The same famous leader has also compared those who doubt
global warming / climate change as “Flat-Earthers”. Currently the discussion back and forth with
those who believe the one group of scholars who support the view of man-made
global warming, etc and with those scholars who have issues with it does
resemble the flat-earth discussions of long ago, but I think some people have
the idea backwards.
While the history of how much of the world believed the
earth was flat vs how much believed it to be spherical is debated (many scholars
debate what you may have been taught in school), the concept is the same that
there were varying opinions on subjects such as the shape of the earth, whether
the sun goes around the earth, or if the earth is the center of the universe. In many scientific areas, from my recollection,
there were several views strongly supported by the governments in Europe and the
Catholic Church who, at the time, was intertwined with the governments. (An over-simplification, but I don’t want to side
track with the entire history of church and government intertwining here, nor
does debating the exact level of support for various ideas. That is really the point here). It was at this time that the government,
based primarily on biblical interpretation, maintained that the earth was flat,
and the center of the universe, and those that would dare contradict that
statement would be outcast, ostracized, and punished up to and including
death. The experts and those experts paid
for by the leaders were in a consensus as to the nature of the Earth in
the universe. Today we have the same scenario
– where governments, leaders, and those that are supported by those governments
and leaders constantly point out their consensus position and ostracize,
outcast, and to the extent possible punish those who would dare speak
otherwise. Why is that?
Why do we have climate change summits made up of mostly
politicians and dictators when we have thin trust in their motives to begin with? Because these leaders have various motives
and agendas, I become suspect when I see them engage in “climate talks”. Why? Simply
because while I would love world leaders to suddenly become selfless and do
things to save the world, it is really wishful thinking. While some of the leaders may be that way,
many will just be there to get what they can for themselves. A “what’s in it for me” scenario. This has bothered me for a long time – from the
first time I heard it announced about an international convention of global
leaders and scientists. Why do you need
a conference of both scientists and political leaders for such a
discussion? Would not the political
pressure have a tendency to pollute the science? Money and power tend to do just that. Does having scientists on-hand really put any
additional pressure on dictators? What
pressure or leverage can they place?
All of these items – limiting debate, government sponsored studies
that align with political agendas, co-mingling of science and politics, among
others should all be red flags to people that something could be wrong. Not that
there is a problem, but at least to take a second look. Having scientists who have different takes on
the data should be examined, not shot down.
Debate and discussion is important, especially when it comes
to scientific studies and should be an area that can never be completely “settled”. If someone or group of people try to shut
down such discussion, should we not question their motives in doing so? Or should we blindly accept the answers given
and move on.
I always seek the truth.
Limiting discussion indicates to me, usually, that the truth lies
elsewhere.
