In "The Descent of Mann" (March 14), Sam Novack provided his opinion on the recent court decision against Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the work of climatologist Michael Mann and anthropogenic - not "anthropomorphic" as he wrote - global warming. I would like a chance to point out the blatant misinformation in Novack's article. First, Novack mentioned Mann's hacked emails of 2009 known as Climategate. Emails taken out of context, especially the mention of a "trick," were used to doubt Mann's findings and justify the belief of a global warming hoax. However, Novack failed to show that investigations by multiple independent organizations, universities and countries have shown that there was no fraud or scientific misconduct. The criticisms against Mann's work are simply unfounded and unscientific.\nNovack also argued that Mann should have taken this opportunity to "legitimize his research and further prove his point" by yielding to Cuccinelli's investigation. Yet Cuccinelli was demanding documents not from Mann himself, but from the University. These documents include all email and correspondence between Mann and 39 other scientists. Such a demand is not only a gross violation of academic freedom and an overreach of power, but also an obstacle to the open exchange of ideas among colleagues. An environment in which your thoughts could be acquired and published at any time, and then subjected to public misinterpretation and criticism, can only foster fear and hinder our pursuit of knowledge.
Novack wondered why Mann "does not welcome the closer look at his methods?" The answer is that they already have been. In the 'publish-or-perish' world of science, peer review is one of the most important aspects of validating evidence. Research methods and findings are carefully scrutinized for possible errors before and after publication. Not only has Mann's work undergone this rigorous inspection - which is probably even more closely examined due to the public controversy around global warming - but has been independently validated and confirmed by other climatologists using different data sets and methods of analysis. If Cuccinelli's sole intention was to see Mann's methods, all he has to do is Google "Mann 1998." No, the Attorney General's Inquisition is not based on rational inquiry, but rather a political agenda to discredit anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
This leads me to my next point, that AGW is a real, empirically measured phenomenon accepted among the vast majority of climatologists. Novack has made some serious false claims in this department. He writes that "many scientists and climatologists dissent when it comes to the theory of man-made global warming" and that a scientific consensus "does not yet exist." This is unequivocally false. A survey of climate-related papers' abstracts from 1993 to 2003 has shown that not one rejected man made global warming (Oreskes 2004); another shows that 97-98 percent of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Such consensus, while indicative of the majority professional opinion, is not the reason scientists accept AGW. Scientists accept AGW because of the overwhelming lines of independent evidence which supports the theory. For this reason, any one scientist's position on the theory is not really important - however, Novack listed three notable deniers, one of whom received a Nobel Prize in an unrelated field.
Finally, Novack referred to acceptors of AGW as "believers" and AGW as a "belief." This is a commonly used tactic to make deniers seem as justified in their beliefs as those who accept AGW. However, this is a false equivalence. I have found that deniers often come to their beliefs via misinformation, misunderstanding, politics or emotions. They fail to realize that people do not "believe" in AGW the same way they reject it. Rather, scientists who "believe" do so because of overwhelming evidence which justifies their belief. It is knowledge and fact. Members of the scientific community, as Novack put it, "ignore those who challenge the idea" because the deniers' objections are not based on legitimate scientific reasoning. If a true skeptic were to come out with a flawless, peer-reviewed study which demonstrably falsifies the concept of AGW, he would be praised as a brilliant researcher from all climatologists for his advancement of science! However, no such event has occurred because deniers fail to properly provide falsification and instead resort to extreme rhetoric, fear-mongering and simple close-mindedness. Denying reality is much easier than facing the cold, or in this case warm, hard facts.
Science is a dynamic and progressive process which may be one of humanity's most important advancements. We cannot let infringements, such as those of Cuccinelli, obstruct the free and open nature of scientific discourse which is so vital to producing reliable, honest and sound research. Nor should we give credibility to the voices of denial which hamper our progress, who merely object with emotion, with misinformation and without evidence of their own. No, we should be vigilant in our pursuit of knowledge, examining all proper evidence and learning all that we can about the effects on climate in order to better understand this important aspect of our planet. We cannot do this if we fail to move beyond these politically-fueled petty arguments which deny well-supported, evidence-based facts. Reject the theory of gravity and you will stay anchored to the earth. Reject germ theory and you will still get sick. Reject the theory of evolution and life will still change. Reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming and the earth will still warm.
Evan Brown is a second year in the College.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | YesterdayStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 2 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | 2 days agoLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
