I posted before about man-made global warming and my skepticism about it.
My friend Jonathan sent me links to the IPCC’s reports, and I have begun reading them. I have gotten through a portion of their main report so far; it is dense, scientific stuff of course and reading it will take a while.
One thing clear from the report is that the scientists who created it want to convince everyone that global warming is happening and that there is a large anthropogenic (man-made) contribution. It is evident in their language usage and in the strange coincidence that none of the evidence they present seems to contradict their findings.
A few red flags that I see, which make me skeptical to believe them outright, are:
1. They dismiss any scientists who disagree with them. This can be seen in the Senate report recently released which showed 400 noted scientists around the world who disagree with them.
a. This dismissive ostracizing makes scientists fear to speak out against the claims and parallels the fears that scientists have to speak out against macro-evolution and abiogenesis theories, that life evolved from non-life and that humans evolved from single-celled organisms. (By the way, that $1 million prize for a person to even come up with a plausible mechanism (let alone actual experiment) to support abiogenesis is still up for grabs).
2. Scientists are not value-neutral machines but are people, and people can be biased because they do not exist in ideological vacuums.
As for number 1 goes, it is a clever but dishonest tactic to dismiss someone off-hand as a crackpot so as to avoid engaging them in a discussion based on the merits of the arguments.
As for number 2, what evidence do I have to make such a claim, that scientists cannot be trusted without careful consideration in what they claim to be true?
Two examples come to mind:
1. In 1973, the American Psychological Association (APA), with 159,000 professional psychologists, declared that homosexuality was no longer a disorder.
a. Further, the APA states that: ‘The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a “cure.”‘
b. Who are you to argue that homosexuality is disordered when, seemingly, every doctor in the world is against you?
2. There is evidence that abortion significantly increases the risk factor for breast cancer (including this new study); however, if you ask the American Cancer Society or National Cancer Institute or the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists–all of which are, or should be, the most authoritative organizations in this area, they will deny that there is any connection.
Now here’s the hard part: It’s nigh impossible for me, an educated lay-person, to read the scientific reports supporting macro-evolution and figure out where the flaw is. I am not educated enough in that field; further, I cannot reproduce their findings, and even scientists within the same field will disagree with them, albeit usually privately in order to keep their jobs.
Similarly, it’s impossible for me to read the evidence supporting or opposing a link between abortion and breast cancer and know whether the link exists or not; however, I know that currently, the powers-that-be in that field have largely bought into the radical feminist ideology that believes abortion is a good thing and necessary for “women’s equality”, so even if the evidence was overwhelming, as this new British study seems to show, they will deny it.
The people that have shaped the field of psychology, like Sigmund Freud, held views of the human person and of the world that were destructive and wrong. We will hopefully reclaim this field someday soon, and replace these destructive ideologies with true ones that respect the dignity of the human person.
However, the APA’s determination that homosexuality is a good thing is contrary to the natural law and to Catholic teaching, and in making this determination, the APA has shown its judgment to be highly suspect. Therefore, I am very reluctant to believe anything that they come out and say is true.
Bringing this discussion back around to global warming, the challenge is the same: I can and will read more of the IPCC’s reports, but I am suspicious of their ideology and agenda.
What could their agenda be? Well, it could be a simple as wanting to stay employed and funded to do the research in the field that they love, whether earth science, geology, meteorology, etc. It doesn’t pay the bills to look at the conflicting evidence with the little understanding that we have of the incredibly complex workings of the earth’s biosphere and say “Well, we just don’t know; it is too complex for us.”
I know that they have computer models to simulate and project what will happen; I have programmed simulations myself. Weather-men have simulations also that try to predict the next day and week’s weather. They are often wrong because even the weather in a very local place varies tremendously due to factors that are too complex and whose interactions are too unknown to simulate.
That being said, I am not saying I think they are lying, but simply that I don’t know whether it is true or not that global warming is happening and that man is contributing significantly to it. Therefore, the best course of action to me is to work reasonably to do things we know will improve the environment: sustainable farming, regulating pollution judiciously, encouraging cities to avoid suburban sprawl (that’s a big one that hardly anyone has a good plan for that I have heard), etc.
I plan to continue reading the IPCC reports as well as the reports from those noted scientists who have evidence against their claims. I encourage you to do the same.
