The Inquisition of Climate Science: A Scientist Exposes the Business of Denial

Galileo faces the Roman Inquisition who, without evidence, demand he recant his statements on heliocentrism. by John Atcheson James Lawrence Powell’s The Inquisition of Climate Science is a straightforward, thorough and well-researched account of the assault on climate science. The book is scholarly, yet entertaining, as a quick review of the titles in the Table […]

by John Atcheson in Climate Progress

James Lawrence Powell’s The Inquisition of Climate Science is a straightforward, thorough and well-researched account of the assault on climate science.

The book is scholarly, yet entertaining, as a quick review of the titles in the Table of Contents reveals.  Among the best are:  “Toxic Tanks” (think tanks), “An Industry to Trust” (in which he contrasts the oil and gas companies’ and Insurance companies’ positions on global warming), “Climategate: Much Ado About Nothing” (in which he drives yet another wooden stake in the heart of this travesty and dispatches other “gates”).

Powell’s account is – pardon the pun – intelligently designed to thoroughly debunk the baseless dogma and diatribes coming out of the denier community. [more]

via The Inquisition of Climate Science: A Scientist Exposes the Business of Denial.

I have just one thought here on the above:

Note the difference between denial and skepticism.  The former is the dismissal of science, the latter is its heart.  The denial is really the denial of the diagnosis made by the doctors of science.  We can just ignore the problem as the denier would, however, most of us would rather take some form of treatment, no matter how painful.  

The skeptic may ask for a second opinion, especially on a terminal diagnosis.  Also, the skeptic might ultimately prefer an alternative medicine route, rather than a more conventional treatment.  However, even the skeptic in the face of evidence will often become a reasonable patient and look at all alternatives, and seek to use some combination of treatments which he trusts based on the evidence. The denier, if he never moves though anger and bargaining to acceptance, will just hope he is not wrong, rather than returning to a healthy skepticism and weighing the available options in the face of death. 

I am not saying that there is not bias (and money) on both sides of this argument.  I am saying that in the name of the precautionary principle we need to start doing what is good for a sustainable world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: