Global warming consensus only, not fact

By Caroline May     11/20/08 6:00pm

Having spent the majority of my college career navigating my way around my science and math requirements (if you need a suggestion for an easy DIII I'm the girl to ask!), I can safely say that I am not a scientist. I am a rational observer of the scientific community and, as a sentient human being, I am susceptible to their discoveries and assertions. Indeed, wizards in lab coats have the ability to shape policies and affect everyone's lives with their findings. Presently, the breathless dictum emanating from on high is that mankind is warming the planet, causing the oceans to rise and killing the polar bears. Once again, I do not claim to be a scientist nor do I claim to know any more about global warming than the next person. What concerns me is that the dogged proponents of man-made global warming are asserting that the debate is "over" because a "consensus of scientists" believes it to be occurring. In my opinion, to declare a debate over and refuse further discussion is to reveal that the argument is weak and cause people - like me - to question any further assertions. As the great and recently departed Michael Crichton once said, "Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right ... The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

The consensus used to be that the world was flat, that there were witches in Salem and that the sun revolved around the Earth. I am inclined to see what others are saying on the matter, and there are many highly regarded scientists who are skeptical of man-made global warming. Unfortunately, the debate has become highly politicized and agenda driven.

To power-hungry politicians, anthropogenic global warming is manna from heaven. How to stem its effect is their long sought-after question for the solution they have always had: more state control, more taxes, more regulations and more opportunities for self-aggrandizement, á la Al Gore. Debate and inquiry greatly hinder the propagation of this initiative, thus a fascistic oppression of dissent has become the order of the day. Paul Joseph Watson has written eloquently on the topic: "The assertion that global warming is man-made is so oppressively enforced upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of doubt is akin to Holocaust denial in some cases. Such is the insipid brainwashing that has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted talking heads - global warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphorical yellow star and only discuss their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be cat-called, harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders who righteously believe they are rescuing Mother Earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can."

---

---

While there is little doubt that the planet has warmed slightly, nobody can know for sure to what this can be attributed. The lack of unquestionable proof, outside of a majority opinion, requires more investigation, an engaged populace and a transparent scientific debate. The policies promoted by those adhering to this hypothesis - that temperature change is man-made - are far-reaching and oppressive. Let us be certain that we have something to fear and that our actions will make a difference before we institute some of the most drastic initiatives a free society has ever considered.

Caroline May is a Will Rice College senior.

---