Climate Change: Scandal shows science still dominated by politics
By Kevin Duvall
Published: Monday, December 14, 2009
Updated: Monday, December 14, 2009
Protestors rally outside the Danish parliament in the center of Copenhagen, Denmark, Saturday. The largest and most important U.N. climate change conference is underway in Denmark, aiming to secure an agreement regarding global climate change.
In the weeks leading up to the Copenhagen climate conference, the world of climate change was rocked with a scandal after a number of questionable e-mails between prominent climate scientists surfaced.
In these e-mails, some scientists discussed hiding data to make their argument look better and silence skeptics. Some climate change opponents saw this occurrence as an indication that the idea of global warming was fraudulent.
After examining 1,073 e-mails, The Associated Press found nothing in the messages indicating faking climate change data, although the scientists did express some doubts over their claims.
Mark Frankel, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, also took part in the AP investigation, said he too found "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very ‘generous interpretations.’"
Frankel also said the scientists had an attitude "that unless you’re with them, you’re against them."
In addition to raising questions about climate change, Frankel has nailed another concern regarding every scientific issue.
Despite being frequently viewed with an image of great intelligence and wonder, science is dominated by politics and ideology.
Our society is very divisive in its political culture. Party affiliations are generally tense, and environmental issues are among those that tend to further raise the tension.
Scientists, like anyone else, have political affiliations and biases.
Like many politicians, they view their opponents as enemies when the dividing lines thicken.
The e-mails showed how far divisiveness can go.
One scientist said the only way to deal with skeptics was "continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit)," while another said he would be tempted to "beat the crap out of" a particular naysayer the next time the two met.
It is not surprising these scientists said such things, because there is much at stake here: fame, money, prestige and the public perception of which side of the global warming debate is winning.
With all this on the table, climate change debaters have become cutthroat in this decade.
A few years ago, after Al Gore began lobbying heavily for action against global warming, it was discovered that his own energy use was very high.
Obviously, this discovery called the issue into question, but some opponents seemed to think that global warming could not exist because the issue’s biggest public figure was a huge hypocrite.
But Gore’s energy indulgence should not have any bearing on the scientific claims of his position.
Gore’s energy bills did not mean that the science behind his claims was less legitimate.
They simply meant Gore probably cared more about his own lifestyle, politics and status than he did about the environment.
The self-interests of the people involved in an issue should make people question their arguments, but the basis for the issue should be the primary focus (science should be most important in scientific issues, etc.).
But for many ordinary citizens, that is not the case. By putting ideology first, politicians and scientists are failing to sufficiently educate people outside their community on climate change.
I came across a video on Yahoo entitled "The decade according to 9-year-olds," in which a group of fourth-grade students answered questions about people and events of our barely still current decade.
One question was "can anyone explain global warming?"
Two students immediately related global warming to going green, which they said meant recycling and planting trees.
The other student who answered this question said global warming meant that the earth was losing water and people were losing resources.
I’m not going to hold it against a 9-year-old for not understanding the concept, since it is a complex theory, and they are just kids.
The fact that the other two students replied with "green" rhetoric, though, makes me think that the students probably have had very little, if any, explanation of global warming.
I remember first hearing about global warming when I was in fifth grade, with a simple outline of the idea of trapped greenhouse gases.
But these kids only know global warming as a political or social movement – not as a scientific theory.
I have no doubt that many adults are in the same boat.
The ideological battle over climate change could be chalked up to human nature.
I’m not a historical expert, but many civilizations have been built on foundations of competition and self-interest.
It’s hard for people to counteract their self-centered sides when they are in a heated competition such as the climate change issue.
But those receiving the scientists’ messages should remember that all issues have an agenda behind them.
We should always ask for the facts to make our decisions.
 "Photo: N/A")
