Treason Against Reason

The standard form of disputation by climate catstrophists is to assert that the science is settled, the debate is over, and anyone who begs to differ is a traitor to humanity. Bjorn Lomborg notes this tendency in an opinion piece in the Australian:

Is it really treason against the planet to express some scepticism about whether this is the right way forward? Is it treason to question throwing huge sums of money at a policy that will do virtually no good in 100 years? Is it unreasonable to point out that the inevitable creation of trade barriers that will ensue from Waxman-Markey could eventually cost the world 10 times more than the damage climate change could ever have wrought?

Today's focus on ineffective and costly climate policies shows poor judgment. But I would never want to shut down discussion about these issues, whether it is with Gore, Hansen, or Krugman.

Everybody involved in this discussion should spend more time building and acknowledging good arguments, and less time telling others what they cannot say. Wanting to shut down the discussion is simply treason against reason.

Free Speech Denialists

The thing climate catstrophists fear most is rational argument. Their general approach is to avoid getting into arguments. Al Gore refuses to publicly debate opponents. This is hardly surprising coming from the person who has done the most to publicise the hopelessly flawed 'hockey stick' graph.

As anyone who has tried to reason with a climate catstrophist knows, most of them rely on the ad hominem argument that "the science" is settled, so there is no point arguing. The aim here is not to debate, but to shut down debate. The last thing they want is rational questioning of some of the dishonest scienctific practices that underpin the catstrophist view.

Many non-catastrophist scientists report great difficulty in attracting grants for their research. This is in stark contrast to the billions available to scientists prepared to toe the IPCC line. However, if a private organisation funds an organisation that sponsors a conference that takes a questioning view of the IPCC dogma, the catastrophists froth and squeal, rather than debate the issues.

This is just another way shutting down debate rather than engaging in rational discussion.

Global Censorship - Climate of Fear

One clear example of censorship is the Global Warming debate. The proponents of the proposition that global warming is is significantly affected by human use of fossil fuels have unilaterally claimed victory by declaring the debate over. Al Gore refuses to debate the issue, even though his movie is full of incorrect data. Now the major focus of the climate change alarmists is on vilifying anyone who disagrees with them.

One seriously disturbing aspect of the debate is the unscientific behaviour of the pro-AGW "scientists". Many do not make their data and the details of their models available for checking in a timely manner, or at all. This is the opposite of science. Michael Mann, author of the infamous 'hockey stick' graph only gave up his data years later, and under congressional subpoena.

Mann's graph was hurriedly included in the 2001 IPCC report to dramatic effect and victory in the debate was claimed. Subsequently the discredited graph was quietly dropped by the IPCC.

The censorship in this debate consists of the closed-minded refusal to discuss the issues, with the insinuation that anyone who wants to continue the discussion is rejecting science. In fact the opposite is true. The very essence of good science is robust discussion. Those who prefer to denigrate their opponents rather than to debate with them are unscientific. This issue is all politics and little science.