Post
Voices of dissent - heretics or heroes?
It is interesting that one of the fiercest areas of debate to have emerged over the last few days (within the Th!nk2 competition) is to what extent global warming is occurring and whom, or what, is to blame. As far as I can tell everyone is in agreement on the fact that the earth is heating up, but there are a few who question whether humans have played a part within that. What's really interesting is that these people have positioned themselves as sceptics, consciously placing themselves in direct opposition to other discussions. It's intriguing because while everyone agrees on what's occurring, their disagreement over the root cause has incited an incredible amount of furor.
The heated debate that has ensued has got me thinking about the role of dissenters. It was not so long ago that those who believed the world was warming were considered scientific outcasts. Heretics of progress if you will. The vast majority of the population considered notions of a heating planet to be ravings of a few addled minded "greenies". Over the past thirty years however, the voices of dissent have gained ground and now non-believers have been cast in the role of sceptics. As the debate of the last few days has demonstrated, today if you disagree with the view that human beings are responsible for global warming then you will be subject to vehement opposition.
This tells me a couple of things. Firstly, it is clear that dissent has to play a role in forwarding our understanding of a topic. If everyone was forced to agree with the majority opinion then we would never progress in our thinking. Defending your viewpoint forces you to clarify your stance and fortify your facts. That said, the larger burden of proof necessarily lies with the dissenter. If the majority are in agreement on a topic, then you must find a way in which to convince them of your position. If you are dogmatic and belligerent in presenting your views it is unlikely you will meet with a receptive audience.
Debates such as this are vital. It is foolish to rest on our laurels, or to uncritically accept what other people are telling us. Continually re-examining the evidence can only ever strengthen our understanding of what we're dealing with. That said, how we express dissent is pivotal to how we then deal with it.
Comments
Thanks for your post. I agree with you. Discussion is essential and if there is a different opinion than we have, ignoring it or fighting it with dogmatic phrases won’t bring us any further.
But apart from that action is necessary too, at least at the moment, at least as long as we just do not KNOW the perfect answer to what causes global warming.
If we would now agree with the global warming sceptics and just continue polluting it might still turn out they were wrong…
I wouldn’t want to live with the consequences.
“It was not so long ago that those who believed the world was warming were considered scientific outcasts. Heretics of progress if you will.”
Tell me about it
Now that we’re so evidently right, we have to deal with a whole new kind of criticism. People have their freedom of speech, sure! But as a society, we simply have to move on…
@ David - I 100% agree with you. Debate is healthy, but we don’t have to wait for unanimous approval before doing something about the problem. What that “something” is can be debated of course (as it has been over the last couple of days) but if we’re acting on the best information we have at the time then I think we’re going in the right direction.
@ Benno - you’re right we do have to move on, but we also have to make sure that now we’re in the majority we don’t stop asking questions or for that matter, listening to them.
I totally agree. Let us assume we realy have a scientific consensus, that we have catastrophic AGW. Why not. But it is not a reason to tell sceptical scientists “I will not publish your crap, because it is against what most of us believe.”
The denier scientist may say: “If you let me publish my heretic article, I will bring such evidence, which will CHANGE the scientific consensus. And in twenty years the consensus will say,what I am saying now.”
Do you remember Alfred Wegener? He was considered a lunatic, when he claimed, that continents “move”. There was a scientific consensus, that continents cannot move.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with the fact that dissenters have the right to an opinion, or to be published in peer reviewed journals. I think people take exception to the fact you’re saying we can’t be absolutely sure that human’s are to blame so let’s do nothing. You may turn out to be right, but what if you turn out to be wrong? What are the relative consequences of doing something versus the consequences of doing nothing? That is the real question.
Of course discussion is very important, in every aspect of life. But I don’t think that scientific evidence can simply be ignored because of peer review. If one would really have evidence of a consensus-changing theory, it would be accepted as the new consensus. That’s just how science works.
As for climate change, the discussion is clearly over. Let’s move on! Let’s DO something! If there are sceptic scientists, let them find evidence. But until then, the scientific consensus is that climate change exists and is man-made and that we should do something about it. Logic dictates that we should act.
Of course “heresy” is absolutely necessary to any scientific discussion. We should be glad for every voice of dissent that enriches the discussion.
But what if someone is actually not dissenting, convicted by his own research, but is simply spreading doubt in the interests of those that don’t want any climate legislation?
This is how the world of PR works, and I think it is obvious that this is exactly what many climate “heretics” do. See for sample the discussion between George Monbiot and Ian Plimer
@ Daniel. You make a good point, and certainly there are people actively trying to derail efforts to tackle climate change to achieve their own ends. I’m not sure that I would label them as true skeptics. Their actions are less about not believing in the facts than attempting to forward their own objectives. Of course from the outside it’s pretty tough to separate genuine skeptics (i.e. those who believe that there is an alternate explanation) and those that are working on behalf of other parties. In my blog I was referring to genuine dissent, as in those who argued that the world was heating up when the majority of the scientific community said it wasn’t, or those who argued that the earth revolved around the sun rather than vice versa. I suppose in allowing individuals the right to freedom of speech you are opening up the possibility that they will abuse it for their own ends. The alternative however, of suppressing minority opinions, is not acceptable as far as I’m concerned.
Perhaps you can read that:
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/why_the_ipcc_position_is_understood_so_dogmatically