The cover story in the most recent issue of Regulation
magazine looks at how environmental science is infused with ideology,
hyperbole and personal attacks. The article is by UCLA geography
professor Stanley Trimble. It discusses the corruption of prominent
scientific journals and how many environmental scientists avoid real
argumentation, while resorting to impugning the integrity of those who
pose legitimate scientific questions. My own personal experience with
this came while attending a panel discussion at Duke University last
year on the role of academics in public discourse. Then Dean of the
Nichols School of the Environment, William Schlesinger, in a completely
gratuitous and out of context swipe at those who disagreed with his
position on global warming, suggested that they were equal to those who
believed the earth was flat or that the moon was made of green cheese.
On the other hand, maybe we should feel flattered. After all, this is
what people typically do when they have no real arguments.
In his Regulation article Trimble comes to the following conclusion.
Any other field of science with a history of as many
extreme statements, personal attacks, and repeatedly wrong predictions, with so little self correction, would be given short
shrift by the scientific community. But extreme environmentalism sails on, brazenly flying the colors of science and turn-ing environmentalism into a morality play.
