The New Religion - Discussion

In response to my post claiming that the NY Times is surprisingly criticizing Sarah Palin for lack of faith in its editorial which complains "She has questioned whether humans are responsible for climate change," reader Tim O'Reilly posted this comment which deserves at least a post to reply to:

"Tom, I think you're misrepresenting the facts here. Global cooling and nuclear winter were never the subject of a serious scientific consensus in the way that global warming is today. This is more like tobacco companies questioning the link between smoking and cancer. I'd also point out that Sarah Palin didn't say she questioned the science. She said she didn't believe the science. She also thinks that creationism should be taught in high school biology as an alternative to evolution. Is that also appropriate "questioning" in your opinion?"

So, point-by-point:

Tim is right that there was no UN-sponsored consensus on nuclear winter nor did the concept enjoy either as much popular attention or scientific support as "global warming" has today. Maybe I should have used the preCopernican "scientific consensus" that the sun and stars go around the earth as an example but I wasn't around for that. However, even if there were unanimity on every point of anthropogenic global warming theory (which there certainly isn't), the importance of the issue make relentless questioning, testing of hypothesis, rewriting of models etc. essential. Since the predicted consequences of global warming (according to some credible predictors and some not-so-credible) are catastrophic and the expense of all known remedies is also immense and the effect of each proposed remedy unknown, the more likely you think continued global warming is (man-made or not), the more you should want to question and study (as well as act). Today, for example, there is a CNN story on a report "written by scientists with NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" that short-lived particulate pollution from burning – among other things – biofuels like wood and cow dung may be a more significant cause of warming than previously thought. Should we ignore that because we already "know" what causes global warming and shouldn't question this wisdom?

I was quoting the NY Times article in saying that Sarah Palin questioned anthropogenic global warming, not quoting Sarah herself. My post was about what the editorial revealed about the NY Times, not about the Vice Presidential candidate. But perhaps that wasn't clear.

I don't think creationism should be taught as an alternative to evolution because evolution is a scientific theory and creationism is not; creationism is an article of faith and not subject to disproof so isn't science. I do think students should be taught to question all theories. Ever since Darwin (and a few others) introduced this brilliant explanation of speciation, the theory has been constantly improved by those who questioned it, not by those who treated every word that Darwin wrote as gospel.

Comments

[Sean]

Tim,

When people like you use provenly false claims as the basis for your argument it becomes a bit hard to listen to anything you might claim. Wander over to factcheck.org before you continue to spout already debunked claims.

Have McCain and Palin said they don't want to invest in alternative energy? What in Palin's track record shows her to be "under the thumb of the oil industry"?

[Tom Evslin]

Tim:

I couldn’t agree with you more that, even if there is no such phenomenon as anthropogenic global warming, “If we've invested in alternative energy, we still have improved our national security, our technological competitiveness, our economy, and our environment.” Have been blogging that for years and, much more to the point, have installed 13+ KW of solar voltaic capability, a geothermal heat pump at one location, and solar hot water at another.

Not to quibble with words, but skeptics can’t be wrong. Skepticism is the right attitude towards scientific hypotheses whether the particular hypothesis prove to be right, wrong, or – as is most often the case – a step in the right or wrong direction. Faith belongs in religion, not science. I’m talking about me now and not Sarah Palin because I know my attitude towards global warming and don’t know hers. So I am a global warming skeptic (and an almost everything else skeptic as well) but not “grasping at anything to make my case”; I’m interested, vitally interested in evidence and new theories on all the many complex sides of this question.

People who make public decisions based on unquestioning belief in anybody or anything do scare me. As I said in the first post of this thread, I am troubled by this potential in Sarah Palin (although at this point I do still intend to vote for McCain and Palin). But I’m also troubled when a great newspaper like the NY Times makes “questioning” (their word, not mine) an indictment and concerned that skepticism should be equated with blanket disbelief or even inaction.

I do appreciate your taking the time for this discussion.

[Tim O'Reilly]

But Tom, doesn't the fact that Sarah Palin takes these two positions (as well as trying to ban books in the Wassila public library when she was mayor there) suggest that Palin is motivated by politics and religion rather than science? When people like you give air cover to right wing religion masquerading as legitimate scientific inquiry, that just muddies the water.

Palin's approach to this issue is dangerous. Let's assume for a moment that global warming skeptics are right. If we've invested in alternative energy, we still have improved our national security, our technological competitiveness, our economy, and our environment. If the skeptics are wrong, and we've done nothing, we're in real trouble. Are you willing to take that bet?

Palin one step away from the presidency is truly frightening. McCain is old and looks sick. With President Palin, we'd have another President under the thumb of the oil industry, who believes that God tells her what to do.

Even if global warming is wrong, we need a Marshall-plan scale effort to address peak oil and related problems.

Basically, what I read here is that you're a global warming skeptic, and are grasping at anything that helps to make your case, without thinking of the consequences.