the arrogance of the intelligent. scientific sloppiness?

The winter of 2009-2010 has not been a good time for the environmental movement. Because of the Copenhagen get together the climate change deniers, Senator Imhofe in the forefront, staged a campaign to undermine in advance whatever good might have been achieved. Unfortunately the national politics, especially of China, India as well as "3rd world nations" (already caught up in anti-western propaganda) prevented the adoption of anything like a program of strengthening the Kyoto Accords and their further implementation. The "deniers," not counting on such an outcome attacked the scientific bases for climate change by attacking the scientists. That they could do so with apparent success was the result of dubious action by some of the scientists, the full extent of which has only gradually become public knowledge.

In an old blog (10-2-08) on the environment I mentioned that it is imperative in an argument to be aware of facts that run to the contrary and not to create the impression of having overlooked any aspect or, worse, of having withheld information. Possible sloppy transfer of data (and dates) from one document to another must also be carefully checked. This may sound pompous but for the evidence that something was rotten, if not in Denmark, certainly in the offices of various environmental agencies/research institutions.

For example there was "climategate," the case of the e-mails from the climate experts at the University of East Anglia (Gr.Br.) that indicate an attitude of "some info cannot be handled by the uninitiated, the 'hoi poloi' of the press and should also be withheld from rival researchers, especially those of a contrary mindset." Investigation of these charges have shown them to be unfounded, but the Imhofes of this world had already successfully made hay while they believed their sun was shining. The release of these e-mails was unauthorized, but I have not come across reports of whether it was also unintended. A second example is the widely discussed " conflict of interest" accusation of R.K. Pachauri, who heads the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also heads a foundation that consults with companies that are likely "sinners" and give financial support to his foundation. Presumably the foundation's consultations are aimed at reducing the possible negative effect f a company's actions. This accusation comes on top of the discovery of factual errors in the latest IPCC report, including the accidental mistake in a date for the predicted disappearance of glaciers. Pachauri's response was arrogantly dismissive.

Fortunately, the UN has appointed a physicist, Dijkgraaf of the Netherlands to get together a panel of scientists to independently examine the IPCC report and also to look into Patchauri's management, etc. Dijkgraaf intends to get his report ready before the end of this August when the ICPP is set to begin work on its 2014 report.

The fall out from "climategate" etc. has caused a Willis Eschenbach (who is a construction engineer) to jump from he shortcomings of the climate scientists to Darwin, for if scientists can be wrong in one case they can be wrong in another, i.e. the theory of evolution, as well. His utterances provoked an interesting spate of comments on the NYT's site for March 9, 2010, only a few of which were sympathetic to his biblical fundamentalism. His is a case of ideology superseding reason.

It seems to me that the views of Senator Imhofe are less ideological than formed by simple political expedience. One could argue that Republicans (and Democrats) have an ideology but I have been unable to find one in the utterances of the Peoples' Representatives as these appear to be addressed only to the requirements of re-election rather than based on a coherent philosophy of government "of, for, and by the people for its common good."

Before Imhofe got into politics he was in real estate and then became President of the Quaker Life Ins. Co. When that went bankrupt in 1986, Imhofe (who had run without success for different offices already, became a Congressman and in 1994 he entered the Senate, replacing Senator Boren, a Democrat. On major issues he votes with the extreme right, for ex., he was one of nine senators to vote against the McCain anti-harsh interrogation bill. But it is his language that is still more bothersome. He has compared the climate change evidence as similar to the Third Reich's "big lie" propaganda, compared the EPA to the Gestapo and Carol Browner, its former Administrator, to Tokyo Rose. Actually, I wonder hoe effective this is as few active people are familiar with World War II propaganda, other than accepting that it was "bad." Yet Japan is now a friend and the Nazis were a bunch of bunglers easily fooled by Colonel Hogan. More telling is Imhofe's own lying. Thus he has cited in support of his anti-climate change arguments scientists who are either neutral or actually in support of climate change arguments. And like Goebels, Hitler's propaganda minister, Imhofe appears to rely on people's forgetfulness. During one hot summer he argued that it had nothing to do with global warming, yet this February's record snowfall inspired him to build an igloo so that V.P. Gore, Imhofe's particular butt of ridicule had a place to live, for this extraordinary winter demonstrated that there was no global warming.