THE RELIGION OF CLIMATOLOGY

In the past, some in the scientific community have at times ridiculed the views of some members of the religious community on issues such as evolution and stem cell research. Sound science, according to those critics, was being ignored by the “dogmatic” views of members of certain religions.

Unfortunately, some in the scientific community today are guilty of engaging in the same practice they criticized religious adherents for embracing. A powerful, organized element within the realm of science is questioning the right of other scientists to challenge scientific assumptions and methodologies regarding what they consider to be the “dogma” of global warming.

Some of the “case closed” crowd are even calling for the scientific credentials of global warming “apostates” to be revoked. These absolutists in the global warming debate act much like the Catholic Church did with Galileo when he published astronomical observations that clashed with the teachings of Rome.

The last thing the global warming debate needs is the artificial imposition of dogma.

Much is at stake with this issue. If the global warming adherents are correct, an almost inescapable future of rising sea levels, severe droughts, and other meteorological calamities are in our future if we continue many of the major trends in civilization on the planet.

By the same token, if the global warming predictions prove to be erroneous or greatly exaggerated, the quality of life of many may be sacrificed by new laws and regulations that may be ineffective or unnecessary.

Dr. Richard Feynman, a noted scientist who worked on the development of America’s atomic bomb once wrote: “The only way to have real success in science…is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what’s good about it and what’s bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty.”

Integrity and honesty are sorely needed right now in the global warming debate. The last thing that should happen is to have differing theories about climate change shut out of the process of scientific inquiry.

But, unfortunately, that is happening too often on this issue. Scientists who challenge global warming assumptions or the methodology of studies are finding it harder to get grants to fund their work. That is wrong. A free and open debate is exactly what is needed to determine if global warming is a man-made dire threat to the planet, is much ado about nothing, or is a natural warming cycle that humans can do little—if anything—to change.

Dr. James Hansen, a scientist who does think global warming is a serious problem, put the turmoil behind the debate in clear focus with this comment: “Skepticism…plays an essential role in scientific research, and, far from trying to silence skeptics, science invites their contributions. So too, the global warming debate benefits from traditional scientific skepticism.”

Unfortunately, in the eight years since Dr. Hansen wrote those words, too many in the scientific community are doing anything but inviting the contribution of “skeptics” to the global warming issue.

Politics and academic pressure are being used as weapons against scientific inquiry that doesn’t conform to the “proper” view on this issue. Many scientists who challenge the “conventional wisdom” on global warming must feel a lot like Galileo did when summoned to Rome to be told that his “views” would no longer be tolerated.

The best science comes from the most challenged theories. That principle seems to be accepted in all scientific disciplines except the climate change debate.