Liberty Alone

I always feel when I post something like this that I should say that I do not deny the reality of climate change, even if I am sceptical about many of the more alarmist claims (often made by people who stand to gain in some way from people’s fear). So, for the record: The climate of the earth is changing. It is warming. Part of this is due to human action and we can and should do something to mitigate the effects we have and reduce the amount of climate changing pollution we emit (but in a liberal, non-coercive way with no political motive behind government actions).

Now that’s out of the way, I see that there have been calls in the US to censor sceptical scientists, there have even been suggestions for Nuremburg style trials for them (admittedly from the more lunatic end of the green movement - but aired on national television).
This is extremely troubling. Science works through debate and research. When you stifle debate you stifle progress and can hold onto potentially damaging beliefs.
To combat sceptics you should conduct your own research and submit that to peer review and review their work - are there any problems with the methodology? Are their conclusions supported by the evidence?
And when you do your research, do your best to remain unbiased- if you want a particular result then you will see it in the results (this of course goes for both sides of the debate).

The blog post I link to above does seem somewhat partisan, but the essential points - the outrage at the censorship - hold whatever your view on climate change. (A quick google throws some light on his position - it is claimed he was hired to directly attack climate change science - he was also one of the main people in the infamous ‘Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’ campaign - not a particularly unbiased source you might say).

Censorship is bad, censorship in science even more so, and on an issue as important as climate change, we cannot risk this course of action. We need good knowledge of the science, away from the political posturing of any group. Science should lead policy in this case, and that goes for alarmists and deniers.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.