Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Meant to link this the other day. Via Jules Crittenden: Andrew Bolt: Er, what consensus?
My series set out to profile the dissenters—those who deny that the science is settled on climate change—and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world’s premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop—the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.
Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists—the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects—and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction.
The piece from which Bolt is quoting is here: Lawrence Solomon: They call this a consensus?
At some more historically-removed point a sociological study may help to illuminate the psychologies involved. One can understand sentiment, emotion, passions, etc. applied to various issues, but when they're not only applied but additionally dominate the need to control the science as such, the science qua science, and the perceptions of what the science represents, then a non-rational and anti-rational force is at play. Something akin to a quasi-religious impulse perhaps; regardless, it's certainly not rational and well reasoned in the very domain where rationality should hold sway.