There is no shortage of reasons to suspect the debate over manmade climate change has been woefully incomplete. After all, alarmists’ primary response to critical components of their case disintegrating — the “hockey stick” graph debunked, doomsday computer models exposed as farce, no actual temperature rise since 1998 — has been to cackle condescendingly, emit ever-louder catcall comparisons to flat-earthers and Holocaust deniers, and respond to every call for debate with a declaration that…the debate is already over.
Knee-jerk demagoguery and a refusal to engage opponents are not typical hallmarks of a movement with facts on its side, as renowned Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon ably demonstrates in The Deniers, absolutely essential reading for those seeking to truly understand the intrigue and intellectual dishonestly that has thus far prevented a reasoned debate on the merits of climate change science — which is, incidentally, anything but settled.
Solomon, who appears at a CEI Capitol Hill Book Forum on Friday, was kind enough to speak with TAS about The Deniers, free thought in science, and the environmental devastation that could potentially be wrought by global warming “solutions.”
So, judged by your resume, you do not appear to be a right-wing reactionary moonlighting as an oil company stooge. How did a good soldier in the fight for environmental justice wind up in the company of such personae non gratae in your chosen field?
Lawrence Solomon: Environmental protection relied on sound science. If we allow science to become a tool for propaganda, the environment will ultimately suffer.
The Deniers began as research to fill a few of your National Post columns, and grew into something much larger. Were you shocked by the caliber and number of climate change skeptics you discovered?
LS: I didn’t know what to expect, but I was pretty sure I would find at least a few top caliber scientists. I didn’t expect to think, as I do now, that the majority of top scientists may be in the skeptic camp. The press has not been doing its job. Had it done even a minimal amount of fact checking and investigation it would have realized that the science is not settled.
Is the zeitgeist such that global warming skeptics simply don’t have a shot at breaking through to the political mainstream?
LS: Most of the scientists I profiled aren’t interested in becoming campaigners on climate change. They aren’t policy wonks. They just want to do their science.
Granted. But with the stakes so high, is there any way scientists, like the remarkable individuals you profile in The Deniers, could better connect with the culture at large and somehow circumvent the hostile media?
LS: Most don’t want to connect with culture at large. Some do, and these are working hard at it. I don’t know what pathway they’ll find to finally get through to society at large, but I have no doubt that they’ll find it. Their ally, after all, is Truth, and that makes for a potent combination.
Do you believe, convinced of a “planetary emergency,” global warming alarmists see themselves as justified in using whatever fear-mongering means necessary to move people to accept their solutions — to join the side of the angels, as it were?
LS: Most environmentalists are sincere in their belief that climate change could bring catastrophe. They aren’t being disingenuous.
Then again, you write of your experiences with skeptics who “don’t want to be found at all and try very hard not to appear as dissenters. They have no wish to be called names in the press, or to lose their jobs, or to have their funding cut off as many deniers have.” Certainly the media deserves blame, but aren’t some sincere environmentalists and scientists helping to squash legitimate debate, too?
LS: From the typical environmentalist’s point of view, the debate isn’t legitimate. They think that the science is settled, that the time for debate is over, that debate amounts to foot-dragging. But the environmental camp is split. Environmentalists in the Third World are not eager to see the Third World’s destroyed to fulfill some Western environmental vision. I expect tensions to surface between these two camps.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?