When Bjorn Lomberg's controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist was released, the number of people lined up to excoriate the Danish professor was astounding. Even more astounding was the utter lack of scientific basis to their arguments. People who should know much better attacked the Lomberg ad hominem, instead of investigating his data and analyzing his conclusions. Even the venerable mainstay of science for the educated layman, Scientific American, resorted to threatening to sue Lomberg for using their vitriolic 11-page editorial against his book as part of a detailed rebuttal. So outraged and insensible to rationality were Lomberg's opponents, that they recommended to the Danish Commission on Scientific Dishonesty that they review the work. The DCSD issued a scathing report calling the book "objectively dishonest." However, the report was based on the same emotional vitriol as Lomberg's critics' attacks. Today, the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation has repudiated the DCSD's report, calling it "completely void of argumentation."
I think that these scientists were not as fortunate to have a graduate advisor so demanding as mine was. They have forgotten what science is, and how science is done. Science is not about political platforms, or treaties. Science is about hypotheses, data, and conclusions. Most importantly, the rebuttal of a theory is done by testing and analysis, not by shouting louder than your opponent. I can hear my advisor's words now: "Wishing it does not make it so. Show me data!" They had forgotten that their passion for their studies should never, ever become passion in their studies. There is no room in science for zealotry. Show me the data.
One can easily hazard a guess on the motives of Lomberg's critics. The NSF alone has requested $681M [source: nsf.gov] for the geosciences, which includes study of climate change. As results that run counter to the popular assumptions on the matter are not politically correct, failing to publish the "proper" conclusions could cut off the flow of cash to the honest researcher. As such, you see very little scientific study on the climatological effects of things like the Indonesian peat fires, which are not currently factored into climatological models at all. According to an article in Nature magazine, the Indonesian peat fires, which cover an area the size of Belgium, dumped as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as all man-made sources in Europe. Because we don't have any analysis of this, we don't know whether or not fighting these fires could slow or even reverse the current warming trend that we are seeing. I believe that in dealing with global warming, ignorance is far more dangerous than burning fossil fuels.
Posted by brent at 22:13Greg and I often have discussions about how money now seems to rule the world. He tells me that's the way it is, and you need to learn to deal. I think it's wrong, and we should push for change. How? I don't know. Maybe by being true to what we believe, even if it means being submitted to personal attacks.
Posted by: Silverlotus at December 18, 2003 10:56 AM