| THE HOCKEY STICK AND THE CLIMATE WARS Dispatches from the Front Lines Michael E. Mann Bill Nye (Fwd.) New York: Columbia University Press, November 2013 |
Rating: 5.0 High |
|||
| ISBN-13 978-0-231-15255-6 | ||||
| ISBN-10 0-231-15255-8 | 423pp. | SC/GSI | $19.95 | |
Common sense. This book provides it in abundance, and that's a good thing, because common sense has become all too uncommon in today's world — especially within the disputes the author calls "the climate wars." As he notes, those who argue against climate science almost invariably have no scientific basis for their contentions. There have always been people who distrusted certain aspects of science; the theory of relativity has been a target since its elucidation by Einstein early in the twentieth century. But the numbers of protesters arrayed against the mainstream consensus on climate science are unprecedented, as are their vehemence and their persistence. Some genuinely misunderstand what science is telling them about climate change. But many refuse to look at the evidence, and others actively promote such refusal. These last two groups are fairly called deniers and Denialists, respectively.
It is reasonable to suppose that Denialists are motivated by greed, for controlling the effects of climate change requires cutting back on fossil-fuel use, and fossil fuels are immensely profitable — currently the most profitable industry on the planet, in raw dollars. However, this is too simplistic. Christian fundamentalism plays a part, because it teaches that God will not allow humankind to be destroyed and thus any claim that human actions might in future threaten human civilization is heresy. Another motivation is free-market fundamentalism, which holds that government is incapable of solving the problem — or any problem, really, save those that require military force — while the "unfettered free market" can deal handily with climate change.
But whatever motivates Denialists, their actions are a danger because for selfish reasons they impede rational action against a real threat. They are, quite simply, absolutely shameless. As Michael Mann thoroughly documents in this book, Denialists — those who argue that climate change is not real, or not a serious problem — will use any method that will advance their agenda. He notes that they have:
It is a technique as old as humanity. When you have no facts to use against your opponent's argument, you accuse him of misconduct of some sort.
Various people have accused Dr. Mann of fraud since the publication of MBH98, his first "hockey stick" paper. The same accusation has been hurled at other prominent climate scientists and at the IPCC. Individual scientists are claimed to have made egregious errors, or to have trumped up data to keep the grant money flowing. With the IPCC, the claim is that some sort of collusion is taking place. In either case, the aim is often said to be money or power.
Recently, a new wrinkle has been added to the charges against Dr. Mann. Following the 2012 conviction of Jerry Sandusky at Penn State for child molestation, Dr. Mann has been called a molester — except that, instead of molesting children like Sandusky, he "molests and tortures data." Thus, guilt by association and innuendo join the former accusation of fraud.
Law, too, has a long history in human civilization. "Defamation of character" is a legal term; it means the injuring of a person's good name or reputation. Under the law, such defamation is libel when done in print or slander when stated verbally. In either case it is actionable, with some restrictions for public figures.
The story is complicated.7 Suffice it to say that Dr. Mann sued both CEI and the National Review for defamation. His lawsuit has passed several legal barriers and looks as if it will go to trial.
I'll be watching, to see whether Mark Steyn continues to demonstrate his propensity to shoot himself in the foot.
As I've noted in my review, the theft of e-mail correspondence among climate scientists from a vulnerable backup server at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) should be regarded as a paradigm for the entire campaign of baseless attacks on climate science. To recap: the file containing these thousands of e-mails was uploaded to servers in Turkey and Russia and to the WikiLeaks site. The e-mails were examined for incriminating statements, and some few were claimed to be such. The massive coverage of these in the major media before the COP15 in Copenhagen may have contributed to the lack of progress at that conference and certainly sowed considerable doubt in the public mind about the reality of climate change.
Dr. Mann points out that two later attempts were made to revive this bogus scandal, and both fell flat. The initial sally had some temporary impact, but it soon became apparent that almost nothing it disclosed was truly incriminating.6 It has now faded away, and Dr. Mann thinks it may be the turning point when the entire campaign began to fade away.
"The legacy of the manufactured climategate scandal may in fact may be the opposite of what climate change deniers had hoped. While the campaign did have the immediate imact of casting doubt over climate science, it also marked a critical juncture, and indeed potentially a turning point, in the climate change debate. Perhaps 'climategate' was the moment when the climate change denial movement conceded the legitimate debate, choosing instead to double down on smear and disinformation, a tacit acceptance that an honest, science-based case for denying the reality of human-caused climate change and the threat it presents could no longer be made." – Page 252 |
I devoutly hope he is correct.
To contact Chris Winter, send email to this address.