Science for sale or rent, no phone, no pool, no pets, ain't got no cigarettes....

Darn, I got lost there with the old song, "King of the Road".  But in reality, science IS for sale in the 21st Century (as it was in the 20th Century).  Here is what I mean. 

If you have spent the time as I have in trying to work your way through Danish author Bjorn Lomborg’s book, “The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World”, you will see that it is a very big endeavor.  Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace, wrote this book to help those of us who are not environmental scientists to gain a greater depth of understanding about environmental issues, including the issue of global warming.  As a psychologist, I am used to reading and deciphering data, but this is quite a task.  The book quotes study after study, giving the raw facts instead of the interpretations of others. 

Lomborg’s book (as well as his others) is controversial because it doesn’t follow the party line of environmental fanatics, many of whom are either politicians or scientists making a buck on the issue of the environment.  The book makes its arguments based on the data, concluding that “claims on certain aspects of global warming, overpopulation, declining energy resources, deforestation, species loss,  water shortages, and a variety of other global environmental issues are unsupported by analysis of the relevant data. The book was first published in English by Cambridge University Press in 2001”. (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). 

According to the Associated Press (12/14/07), the head of the U.N. panel on climate change has compared Lomborg to Hitler.  Others have labeled him a parasite and as launching stealth attack on mankind.  So much for the gentility of academia.  I guess when millions of dollars in research money is at stake, the gloves come off.

Lomborg and his fellow skeptics have not been allowed a voice in the debate on environmental issue.  Just read the reports, the journal articles that get published, and what shows up in the mainstream press.  I believe this is due to the fact that the dissidents base their arguments on hard data instead of interpretation.  They are not in the discussion for political or financial gain. 

Lomborg stated that he believes all of this reflects (badly) on the mainstream.  He believes that global warming does exist and that it is caused, in part by human beings.  But, he also believes that “it isn’t a big threat and that international treaties requiring sharp and immediate cuts in carbon emissions would cost a lot but do little good.  Angry words and table-pounding…only show that your argument is not that strong”.  He believes that other issues are much more significant than environmental issues, “for example, AIDS or malnutrition. 

Meanwhile, Europe continues its efforts to strong arm America into submission on the issue.  On Thursday the European nations threatened to boycott U.S.-sponsored climate change talks unless the Bush administration “compromises” and “agrees” to a road map for reducing greenhouse gases (Associated Press, 12/14/07) Of course, by compromise and agreement they mean submission.  And our own little environmental moron, Al Gore, joined in, saying that the United States was “principally responsible” for blocking progress at the current Bali talks (Associated Press, 12/14/07). 

There is money to be made by scientists who publish and they can only publish if they agree with the mainstream.  There is power to be gained by politicians who condemn America and join the self-aggrandizing scientists in promoting panic about environmental issues such as global warming.  When money and power are involved, we, the people, need to be cautious…very cautious.  We are the ones that will lose in the end.  And we will lose in a very big way!