Might I suggest that the argument that the climate change debate is like Galileo and his confrontation with the Church (with, of course, the climate scientists playing the role of Galileo and the “deniers” in the role of the Magisterium) is a poor analogy.
Surely it should be something like Newton v Einstein or Luther v Zwingli. An imperfect analogy to be sure! And please offer better ones. Newton and Einstein being personally separated by hundreds of years further weakens that pairing. But my point is that radio and TV talking heads aside many of those in this debate are “on the same side.” To say that “deniers” are all anti-intellectual non-scientists is incorrect. Rather, many involved in this debate are in fact scientists who disagree as to how to interpret the data and what conclusions to draw from such data. The debate is actually still very much within the same house.
As with any debate there is a lot of name calling going on and this is actually what got me mulling today. I do not like the assertions of “anti-intellectualism” being made and that may be the topic of another post. But one thing is clear to me. That phrase and its corresponding semi-hidden suggestion that if you are anti-intellectual you are also a right-wing conservative Christian (as one colleague recently stated). I think this Galileo=Climate Scientist analogy is intended to tar their opponents with a similar brush.
So there must be a better analogy and perhaps you can help me find it. In the meantime I think we need to be a little more charitable towards one another in this debate, even while recognizing each feels their own position carries an incredible imperative.
I thought it was less about scientists disagreeing and more about politics.
There is certainly a political aspect to it for many but what is lost in the noise is that the choir of scientists is not in harmony, there is disagreement.
but that’s what I’m suggesting – disagreement controlled by politics.
And what I am suggesting is that there are scientists who disagree with the consensus based upon their scientific opinion, NOT their politics.
In other words, there is genuine disagreement that is NOT controlled by politics, but that is lost in the noise of the media AND because any disagreeing scientists are being labelled as “marginal,” thus dismissing them before even evaluating their views. (This is the importance of the email “climategatee,” it brings peer review into serious doubt.)
I think this will be the real test of the scientific academy. If everyone responds like Mr. Pachauri (as if “they’re just blowing off steam” could ever be a legitimate response to something like this) then it fails. If there is honest introspection and ideas are amended accordingly then it works.
Yes I understand … but I’m just a cynic!
After reading clergy names in your commentary, I was inspired to ask this question: In the title, The Right Reverend Doctor John Doe, what is the meaning of the word “Right”? Cheers on a snowy day! -Lee
“The Right Reverend” refers to a bishop in either the Anglican or Roman Catholic traditions (and maybe eastern as well, but I am not sure).
“The Very Reverend” refers to certain senior priests in a diocese, usually the dean of the cathedral or deanery. (I have also been told that as an academic dean I could be called “The Very Reverend” but I don’t see any need
)
I thought it was a conflict between those who want to destroy the world and those who only want to destroy its economy
I appreciate those who at least recognize that this is not about “saving the world.” It will last long after we are gone (that is, of course, excepting the Parousia). Preserving the environment is for our protection, not the Earth’s.