(cross-posted at
Deny My Freedom)
It seems that facts can't deter the right wing when it comes to just about anything. However, it especially aggravates them when someone they've beaten down dares to get back up and speak truth to power. Al Gore's documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, has generated the kind of buzz not seen around the issue...well, it's never gotten the kind of publicity that Gore has given it now. It's the kind of movie that not only Democrats and environmentalists can support, it's even a movie that a diehard Republican can endorse. All in all, the movie has been extremely well-received; at Rotten Tomatoes, the movie has received extremely high rating of 91%.
But the right wing keeps plugging away. Yesterday, in the right-wing's wankery headquarters known as the Wall Street Journal editorial page, so-called 'scientist'
Richard Lindzen attempted to dispute the claim that global warming is
actually occurring.
Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."
That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.
Yes, Mr. Lindzen, there is such a thing as having a debate on an issue and coming to a consensus. If all debates and discussions were meant to simply be a neverending airing of grievances about why the other side is wrong, nothing would ever get accomplished. Furthermore, to suggest that he doesn't know what the debate is about is akin to seeing a crime happen and then not knowing why bothering with a jury trial.
The rest of Lindzen's piece is hardly noteworthy. He goes on to criticize the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), even though he sat on the committee that eventually stated there was evidence of global warming and said it was 'an admirable'. To prove that he is indeed worthy of the title of wanker, Lindzen ends on this note:
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists -- especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce -- if we're lucky.
Lindzen's first point is a cheap appeal to what the right wing loves to do - ignore inconvenient truths. So he tells them to simply ignore it because it is beyond the grasp of the commoner's mental capabilities. That won't work on most people. Secondly, it is largely scientific consensus that yes, humans cause global warming. It is not an 'unresolved question', it is fact. Lindzen's third point may as well be a complete repudiation of science. The whole reason of repetition - in fact, the entire existence of science - is to determine fact by experimenting and ultimately reaching the same conclusion. This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.
It might also help Lindzen's case if he actually watched the movie and decided to critique it on the points Gore makes instead of attacking the entire scientific community of which he purports to be a part of. Those scientists that have seen it reaffirmed that Gore's movie, except for a couple of minor errors, is factually correct:
WASHINGTON - The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.
The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.
The fact that only 19 climate researchers, out of more than 100 contacted, have seen the movie or read the book of the same title may be an indictment of sorts. Nevertheless, those who saw it stated that, with the exception of tying strengthening hurricanes to global warming and confusing his ice sheets, Gore got it right. In fact, one scientists criticized Gore for being too optimistic:
Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit -- such as changing light bulbs -- the world could help slow or stop global warming.
It may not be something people like to hear, but global warming is an inconvenient truth that we will be forced to address, sooner or later. It is not an issue of politics; it is an issue that carries great moral consequence. Al Gore, like him or not, is correct about global warming. People may not like to hear the truth, but they deserve to know. The right wing can't handle the truth.