The "Green Room," a BBC News environmental opinion series, threw the gauntlet down to skeptics last week. In his column "Skeptics: Cards on the table please!" Richard Black issued a challenge to skeptics claiming that science is biased in favor of research confirming man-made climate change:
If you have evidence of research grants turned down because of a clash with the prevailing consensus, of instances where journals or conference organisers or consensus bodies have rejected "inconvenient" findings, please send it to us; my email address is at the bottom of this article.
With the scientific consensus clearer than ever, skeptics in the science, political, and media communities have shifted their arguments to assert that the science industry (scientists, universities, journals, grant-making bodies) is biased in favor of evidence supporting man-made climate change. If true, as Black writes, the implications are unsavory -- to say the least. However, these skeptics have not generally backed up these assertions with proof, and few media outlets have asked for evidence. It should be interesting to see what comes of the BBC's challenge.
More after the jump.
Black reached his challenge by way of a thought exercise on the scientists-vs-skeptics debate. "If you accept the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus view of climate science, humankind is involved in an unprecedented and highly risky experiment with the only ecosphere it has, and climate skeptics are simply vandals laying a tree trunk across the train tracks which society must traverse to escape its fiery grave." He writes further:
If you dissent from the consensus, you take the view that public opinion and much of politics has embarked on a wild decarbonising goose chase which will break economies, restrict personal movement and distract resources from other important societal challenges.
When this fundamental divide erupts in parliaments, in media, in alehouse arguments, that is fair enough; much of society works, for better or worse, on the basis of airing disagreements and having a good old rant, with your ability to shout loudly outweighing the intrinsic merit of your argument.
It is not, however, the way that science should be.
We appreciate this fresh and balanced look at the debate, and look forward to the continuation of this search for truth.
- Log in to post comments
Interesting. That was the same move made by the "scientific" creationists in the 1980s: they could not get published in the scientific literature because of biased censorship by journals. The claim was made most recently (to my knowledge) two years ago to a Member of the Ohio State Board of Education. However, in no instance has any evidence of that suppression been offered. When creationists were asked for examples of manuscripts submitted and rejected, none were provided.
Start with the juxtaposition of "scientists-vs-skeptics," as if none of those who have voiced skepticism regarding one or another of the cluster of hypotheses lumped together under the rubric 'AGW' have scientifically defensible reasons for their skepticism. Then consider the presumptuousness of "If you dissent from the consensus, you take the view...(etc, etc)."
Where's the balance in such views?
I really hope the skeptics are going to provide something substantial here. Either substantial evidence of wrong doing or substantial evidence of them not having anything concrete at all.
The Sciguy blog at the Houston Chronicle turned into a hurricane info center and there is a lot of debate about climate change. There is a group of people convinced of a global conspiracy against good science with the aim of taxing us all into oblivion... There is plenty of accusations flying around, now let's see if there is any substance..