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.
