Late last year "revisionist" historian David
Irving was released from an Austrian prison after serving
13 months of a 3-year sentence. Irving, a notorious Holocaust
denier and anti-Semite,
had violated Austria's 'Prohibition
Statute' which forbids the trivialization of the Nazi
Holocaust.
I am certainly no fan of Irving and his warped view of history,
but I find it disquieting one can still be jailed in a liberal
democracy like Austria for being a prisoner of conscience. It
appears that some countries find it necessary to ban
the freedom to deny.
Irving may be using his credentials as an historian (whatever
those 'credentials' may be) to propagate disinformation,
but he is within his rights to do so. Our society does not enforce
the integrity of the memesphere
through coercion. Moreover, Irving clearly subscribes to a certain
belief structure. In a free society, we have no choice but to
tolerate
this sort of bullshit.
That doesn't mean, of course, that we can't rail against
it. Even Deborah
Lipstadt, an outspoken critic of Irving, was opposed to his
imprisonment, noting, "I am not happy when censorship wins,
and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship…
The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with
truth."
Denying Climate Change
It's all too easy to throw a fit and hurl people in jail when
their views oppose your own, but this is exactly what is happening
with Holocaust deniers. And disturbingly, it appears that the
right to deny global warming is also in jeopardy. Like the war
against Holocaust revisionists, there are those who would like
to permanently silence the global warming skeptics. The fear and
dread surrounding the climate change crisis had led to a religious-like
fervor and the emergence of a new political correctness. Even
more bizarre is that global warming skeptics are actually being
compared to Holocaust deniers.
Take for example the recent outburst
from journalist Ellen Goodman. "I would like to say we're
at a point where global warming is impossible to deny," she
proclaims, "Let's just say that global warming deniers
are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the
past and the other denies the present and future." Goodman
and others would like to see this sort of memetic linkage stick,
which would cause brains to automatically switch off while emotion
swells to a boiling point.
Climate change is such a serious social issue that entire careers
and reputations are at stake. Recently, Heidi Cullen of The Weather
Channel suggested that the American
Meteorological Society revoke their "Seal of Approval"
for any television meteorologist who expresses skepticism that
human activity is creating a climate catastrophe. "Clearly,
the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on
cyclical weather patterns," she says, "It's like
allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes
rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's
not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement."
And just last week a dispute erupted in Oregon, where Gov. Ted
Kulongoski has considered
firing the state's climatologist George Taylor, who has
said human activity isn't the chief cause of global climate
change. "It seems if scientists don't express the views
of the political establishment, they will be threatened and that
is a discomforting thought," said Alabama state climatologist
John Christie, a professor of atmospheric science at the University
of Alabama in Huntsville.
Indeed, the notion that certain lines of scientific inquiry be
prohibited is unacceptable and runs against the spirit of academic
due diligence. Part of the problem here is that bona fide
research is often conflated with the malevolent work of the denial
industry; there is a growing network of fake citizens'
groups, extremists,
and bogus scientific bodies who are claiming that the science
of global warming is inconclusive. These groups, to no one's
surprise, are the sorry spawn of corporations who have the most
to lose in the struggle against greenhouse gas emissions. Exxon
is one company that certainly comes to mind.
Exposing Disinformation
Again, like the Holocaust deniers, these groups are shielded by
freedom-of-speech laws. At the same time these disinformation
engines need to be exposed, and it is our responsibility as concerned
citizens, writers and activists to make that happen. Scientists
and highly influential figures also need to wade into the fray
— and they have. Al Gore's An
Inconvenient Truth has been tremendously influential, and
groups like the Union of Concerned
Scientists are working to reveal scientific abuses and interference.
Meanwhile, scientists and academics deserve to be protected from
the perils of groupthink and "consensus science." Jeff
Kueter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI), warns
that "rational and open" discussion of climate change
science that includes dissenting voices is in danger of being
short-circuited at the expense of sound science and free speech.
"It smacks to me of McCarthyism and big-brotherism and is
completely antithetical to the scientific process and the American
political philosophy of free speech," he says.
Attacking researchers who seek to challenge the status quo, aside
from it being a witch hunt, may also work to the detriment of
those concerned about the environment. If there are other factors
and circumstances contributing to global warming we most certainly
need to know about it.
The war against climate change is at risk of becoming a new religion
where “climate contrarians” have been pegged as the
new blasphemers. At its extreme, global warming skeptics may be
at risk of being accused of crimes against humanity.
And it is here I will close by making an important distinction.
It is one thing for a scientist to continue to gather evidence,
pose theories and work towards verification. It is another thing
altogether for unscrupulous groups like Exxon and corrupt politicians
to add unwarranted noise and obstacles to the discussion. Politicians
do not have the luxury of experimentation. Instead, they need
to act and forge policy.
Consequently, politicians are by necessity held to a different
standard. They have an obligation to parse through the noise and
act in the public's best interest. For them to do so, they
must be informed by the best that science can offer.
And in order for there to be “the best science” we
have to give the scientific establishment the benefit of the doubt
and the freedom to conduct sound and unhindered scientific investigations.
