To the Editor:
So, climate change deniers, let me get this straight: The same scientific community that has made this country prosperous and strong with innovations like the microcircuitry and telecommunications that power your blogs, the aeronautical advancements that whisk you to tea party rallies and the medical technologies that prolong your life (assuming your insurer covers the procedure) is now scheming to perpetrate an enormous hoax to ruin the American economy?
Such a broad-based, coordinated deception would be unprecedented in science’s history—but is quite common outside of science. A perfect example is the propaganda machine that has convinced you that, in this one case, science is plotting against us while the oil, coal and other polluting industries have the nation’s long-term interests at heart.
Over the years, various industries have launched coordinated propaganda efforts to deny now accepted facts like the cancer-causing effects of tobacco or that seat belts save lives. In fact, scientific findings linking any commercial product to an injurious effect, or imposing costs on business, have almost always met a wall of rejection by the industry affected.
If, this time, industry truly is fighting for our best interests by denying the role of pollution in climate change, and if science truly is defrauding the public on such a grand scale, then each would be a shocking development in the histories of industry and science.
Paul Kotta
Livermore, Calif., Dec. 9, 2009
Note from KBJ: I have four comments on this letter. (1) Don't you love the term "climate change deniers"? It's analogous to "Holocaust deniers." Those who deny that the Holocaust occurred are supposed to be crazy or evil, or crazy evil. Two can play this silly game. Those, such as the letter writer, who dismiss the recent CRU scandal are "climate-scandal deniers" or "climate-hoax deniers." Wouldn't rational argumentation be better than manipulative rhetoric? Doesn't the fact that this man resorts to manipulative rhetoric show that he is not interested in the sort of rational investigation of facts that is supposed to characterize science? It would be funny if it weren't so sad. A man defends science by acting nonscientifically. (2) That scientists are not always politicized does not imply that they are never politicized. Whether they are politicized in the case of climate change is a matter of fact, to be investigated directly rather than inferred from previous conduct. At most, the fact (if it is a fact) that scientists are rarely politicized gives rise to a presumption that they are not politicized in the case of climate change; but presumptions, by their nature, can be rebutted. You would have to be a true believer (a denier!) to think that no climate scientists are politicized. Has the letter writer read the CRU e-mails? Why does that not suggest politicization to him? (3) Who says that the oil, coal, and other industries have "the nation's long-term interests at heart"? They don't and shouldn't. The business of business is to make a profit, within the bounds of the law, just as the business of science is to get the facts straight and not try to change the world. The letter writer needs to read Adam Smith to learn that prosperity is an unintended benefit of self-interested conduct. It's called the invisible hand. (4) The letter writer is trying to shift the focus from politicized scientists to greedy industries. That's called a red herring. Good try, though!
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 