A number of years ago, I read a column by a scientist who said that many scientists often found it difficult to know whether they should disclose all they could about various issues or focus on the message they want to deliver to the public. He gave as an example the issue of smoking, where many researchers don't publicize the chances that a person would die from smoking out of fear if the real probability was known, some people would be less motivated to quit.
He finally disclosed in the article that the chances of dying from smoking are about 33%, and while in reality that is a shockingly high number since so many things can kill you, it is possible some smokers implicitly assume the probability is even higher. So for such smokers, scientists fear that disclosure of the details would deter some from quitting smoking.
This was a specific example of the broader problem he wrote about it, and it has made me very concerned since then about the nature of scientific claims. Adding to that concern is the intellectual trend among leftists in academia, which of course is where scientists spend so many years studying and teaching, to deny that there is objective truth, and therefore one should simply express one's political preferences so there is no truth anyway. Journalism schools have taught this (which is the intellectual underpinning of why the media is so biased), and the "softer" intellectual disciplines, such as history, sociology, and literature, are filled with this approach.
The "hard" sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and biology, have been less immune to this assault on reality, since it is harder to ignore the data.
All of this led me to be very skeptical of the claims of environmental activists in general and global warming activists in particular. Although it would seem that environment science falls more into the hard science category, global warming concerns are driven by what models project the weather will be like tens and hundreds of years from now so it is open to enormous interpretation. And given the intellectual climate, with a desire to focus on one's political goals and to be "effective" as scientists, the inherent uncertainties in projecting the future left much room for political goals to get in the way of science.
The recent disclosure of emails by environmental scientists has exposed the shocking disregard for the truth that must animate scientists and instead has made clear the scientific thuggery of many: seeking to prevent different views from being publicized, corrupting the peer-review process, and "losing" data provide compelling evidence of corruption and politicization of these global warming crusaders.
The "lost" data is, of course, a joke: it has never been easier in the history of mankind to store data than in recent years, and such data is the essence of the scientific method (i.e., what is actually going on in the world), so the proper inference is that these scientists must have discarded data because it didn't help their cause.
In addition, look at the nature of the debate. The proper discussion of any issue is to gather the evidence, integrated in a logical manner, to make the case. Instead, we see global warming advocates seek to denounce those who disagree, even implying that disagreeing with the global warming hypothesis (an estimate of the future based on inherently uncertain computer models) is analogous to the anti-Semites who deny the Holocaust occurred (a historical event).
The proper attitude of anyone toward those who argue by denunciation is to assume their claims are false since, if they were true, they would argue with facts and logic. And to demand the thuggery to stop.
So it is time that global warming advocates present the world, with data that is verifiable, with a rational argument that addresses: is the world warming and to what degree? what are the possible causes of the warming? how likely and important is the warming due to emissions from human-activity? is it bad, good, or indifferent to humanity if the Earth warms? is the cost to stop the warming worth the benefit?
The last two questions are critical and often lost in the shuffle, as if any change must be bad and any cost must be appropriate to pay to stop such change. It is important to realize that warm weather is generally more supportive of life than cold (note the death rate is lower in the summer than winter) and that there has been a massive migration of people in America from the cold north and Midwest to the warm south and west.
People's real choices belie the concern that global warming is necessarily a bad thing, assuming it is true and is caused by human activity. And Bjorn Lomborg has dramatically highlighted that the cost to effect changes in the climate are staggeringly expensive for trivial change, while many other problems are so pressing.
