Somewhere back in the stash of my flighty childhood memories, I remember watching a TV drama where a divorced-couple-to-be was arguing against each other in court about the nature of their daughter’s death. Their stories didn’t add up when cross-referenced. Each kept blaming the other. Finally the fed up judge said something that’s stuck with me: “There are three sides to every story: his side, her side, and the truth.”
So too it seems for the debate I chose to explore. No, no, everybody’s daughters are still breathing as far as I know, but the truth—the ever-elusive truth about climate change—could only be deduced, it appeared, by venturing into the flagless no man’s land between the two warring camps and adopting a less fiery opinion.
You may have already heard about the latest onslaught of scandalous slander, but in case you haven’t, here’s the skinny. Jerk number one eavesdrops on a suspicious email conversation between idiot two and three from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the United Kingdom. Soon after, jerk number one publically accuses idiot two and three of systematically conspiring to hide contradictory evidence against their claim that man-made carbon emissions are indeed warming the globe. Predictably, our hyena-like mainstream media (will call them jerks two through one hundred) pounced on the fresh meat and sunk their teeth into the decade-old debate of global warming with renewed hunger.
Now that you’re caught up to speed, here’s what people from both camps are saying about it. The author of the first article, entitled “Climatologist Under Pressure,” believes that the stolen emails reveal no such cover-up, but do, however, highlight ways in which climate researchers could behave more responsibly (Psst…Duh!). Reporting as fact that a number of organizations independent of UEA have come to the same conclusions about our impact on the environment, the author is confident enough to state that “Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause.” He goes on to suggest that such an accusation would be laughable were it not for the fact that the incident will likely provide brutal argumentative ammunition to political obstructionists who want to stand in the way of passing a climate bill in the near future. If anything, he concludes, the emails show that scientist are as human as the rest of us, and are therefore subject to occasional temptation that may cause them to undermine core values that are essential to the spirit of objective science.
The second article is a much more vicious article with bigger teeth. Published in National Review, this article never refers to the incident as anything but a downright “scandal.” His tone is much more offensive, as opposed to the defensive tone of the first article. “The emails show climate researchers from a handful of universities and think tanks engaged in unscrupulous and thuggish behavior,” he writes before going on to describe “statistical tricks” he claims have been used for years by the researchers he is condemning . In essence, the point he is trying to get across is that these emails are not only blatant examples of scientific misconduct, but that the entire global warming argument as a whole is based off a pile of spurious assumptions that cannot be trusted. Hmm, I thought to myself, he sounds like the “political obstructionist” the first guy warned us about.
As you may well imagine, after reading such polarized articles I didn’t know what to believe. Hell, I still don’t! I do, however, have an opinion as to which article was more convincing. Personally, I don’t respond too well to the whole fire and brimstone appeal. I’m much more swayed by the calmly logical and holistic sort. Because of this, I found myself gravitating to the first article in lieu second. Whether we’re drowning baby polar bears or rallying behind a non-existent cause I don’t pretend to know, but I do know that the natural sciences are full of such unknowns. It is this sense of quest curiosity about the world around us that defines the natural sciences, and a student majoring in this broad field would be well-advised to share this passion. After all, the thrill of piecing together the puzzle is what makes them interesting. Every entity is a piece.
No comments:
Post a Comment