« Ricci v. DeStefano | Main | The Cost of Cap & Trade »

Wednesday, July 01, 2009



An action always seems to be a little bit more permissible when a Democrat does it. Whether it's cheating on your wife, dropping bombs or "suppressing science."

Speaking of Anti-Science, I got my book today!


Apparently it's more the "Anti-Economist Masquerading as a Scientist Obama Administration": http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/climate_skeptic_i_was_hoping_people_at_epa_would_p.php?ref=fpa.


So he's an economist and not a genuine climate scientist, like, say, Al Gore. But since he is a global warming skeptic, the Noble prize doesn't come automatically packaged with his Power Point upgrade. If the story were exactly the same only Bush still President and the rolls reversed, how would story play out?


How reversed? Maybe a climate scientist appointed as an economic adviser producing a report that was suppressed. I doubt Democrats or the left would object to the suppression of a report produced by someone working outside his area of expertise, but they certainly would question the appointment just as they are questioning Alan Carlin's self appointment as a scientist when he is in fact an economist.

As for Gore, I don't recall him claiming to be anything more than a journalist and advocate (he is a trained journalist as I recall). Any materials: reports, movies, etc. that he has produced are based on scientific studies done by others and placed in the public realm for acceptance or rejection. He's not asking his bosses at a government agency to give equal weight to a lay report he produced that runs contrary to the conclusions of the vast majority of professionals in the agency.


The standard is clear: if you support the Anthropogenic Global Warming argument, you get taken seriously, regardless of your expertise. I have no quarrel with that. Our environmental policy will be decided by politicians and voters, not climate scientists. And there is every reason Al Gore should be taken seriously, though he has no field of expertise so far as I can tell.

The EPA could have ignored Carlin's report on the grounds it was unsolicited. Too bad about that email that gave away the real motives: it didn't fit with the party line.

If you are skeptical about AGW, no amount of expertise will help. Dr. Mitchell Taylor has been studying polar bears for 30 years, but he was recently banned from a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission)>.

Why? Because he is openly skeptical about AGW and its presumed effect on polar bears. This was frankly communicated to him in a email from the chairman of the PBSG (when will these guys learn not to send such emails?). It wasn't your expertise that was in question, Dr. Mitchell, "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition".

Scientists have expertise but that doesn't make them better or more reasonable people on other things. The AGW sect has created a culture that divides scientists into the faithful and the heretics. Whatever that is, it isn't science.

The comments to this entry are closed.