COMMENTARY | Der Spiegel takes the experience of Lennart Bengtsson, a climate scientist who has been persecuted for his skepticism of human caused climate change, to suggest that the entire discipline has become politicized.
“Climate researchers are now engaged in a debate about whether their science is being crippled by a compulsion to conform. They wonder if pressure to reach a consensus is too great. They ask if criticism is being suppressed. No less is at stake than the credibility of research evidence for climate change and the very question of whether climate research is still reliable.”
Public perception of how science works is that researchers gather data and derive hypothesis based on that data. The hypothesis are debated and tested and, in the fullness of time, scientific conclusions are drawn. That is the way science is supposed to work.
However, as we have seen at least since the scandal at the University of East Anglia, climate research has become thoroughly political, partly because the idea of global warming or climate change of climate disruption seems to coincide to the agenda of the left.
Things are so bad that Secretary of State John Kerry, and uber liberal and advocate of climate change, was moved to state the following:
“But let me ask you something. If we do what you know you can do as entrepreneurs, as scientists, as innovators, if we do it, and if we were wrong about the science – which I don’t believe we are, but if we were – and we move to new and sustainable energy, what is the worst thing that could happen to us?
“The worst thing is we would create millions of new jobs; we would transition to cleaner energy, which hopefully would be homegrown, which makes every country much more secure; we would have cleaner air, which would mean we have less hospitalization for children for asthma and people with particulates causing cancer; and we would have greater energy security for everybody and independence as a result.”
Climate change skeptics would argue that the worst that could happen would be the destruction of the world economy, corruption on a scale that would make Solyndra pale by comparison, and untold suffering and even death as energy production plummets. Only someone like John Kerry would think that spending trillions of dollars on a nonexistent problem would be a good thing.