tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647126962862750972.post-84593164927894191942008-04-23T17:42:00.000+01:002008-04-23T17:42:00.000+01:00Paul LaClair (apparently Matthew LaClair's father) clearly hasn't read our posts on the subject, and throws some ambiguous - often bizarre - statements into the mix. <BR/><BR/>We could argue about whether or not "Calling for correction of factual errors in a student textbook is censorship", but the complaints made by FoE and James Hansen <A HREF="http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/04/textbook-case-of-politics.html" REL="nofollow">do not relate to matters of fact</A>. Calling for the correction of non-errors because they offend the orthodoxy <I>is</I> censorship.<BR/><BR/>Paul complains that "You cannot undo that reality by cherry-picking some comments and ignoring the whole". What whole? What reality? Paul continues, "It is not for a government text to pontificate on scientific questions, but to convey accurate information on issues of government." By "government text", we assume Paul means 'political science textbook'. If social and political scientists cannot "pontificate on scientific questions", how can government ever respond to scientific evidence? At the beginning of the year, we pointed out that a great number of the IPCC's so-called 'thousands of the worlds top climate scientists' in WGII and III were in fact <A HREF="http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal-thyself.html" REL="nofollow">social </A> <A HREF="http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/wgiii-but-is-it-science.html" REL="nofollow">scientists. </A>Paul seems to imagine that the political and scientific in this discussion are entirely separate. But he is mistaken. As we also point out, the political response to global warming alarmism generated by the environmental movement has not been based on scientific understanding, but precaution.<BR/><BR/>Paul then complains about the term 'activist scientists'. Yet this is an accurate description of the dominant parties in the debate. What are Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Dessler, and so on, if not 'activist scientists'? It was, after all, Hansen who admitted to placing 'emphasis on extreme scenarios' to gain public attention for the climate change issue. Later publicly and loudly contradicting the IPCC estimate for sea-level rise to undermine the consensus position and to again emphasise the extreme scenario, he has close ties with the Democrats, and publicly endorsed Kerry's presidential campaign. What is activism, if it is not the public endorsement of political parties and candidates? Paul may complain that it's not for "government texts" to "pontificate on scientific questions", yet he doesn't appear to have a problem with scientists pontificating on political questions. So how does he know when a scientist is being political, or doing science? We suspect that he finds it hard to tell the difference. Indeed, that he mistakes <I>political analysis with which he disagrees with misrepresentation of scientific facts</I> is a sure sign that he is unable to distinguish the two.<BR/><BR/>Is the term 'activist scientist' applied to 'label the majority of scientists'? Or is Paul defending against the charge by making a numbers argument - the scientists in question are on the same side as the consensus, so to challenge any aspect of global warming science or politics is to make a statement about 'the majority of scientists' (many of whom are in fact social scientists)? And how dare people question scientists?!<BR/><BR/>Paul then moans about it not being fair. "it levels no such criticism against the other side" which is "not a balanced or accurate treatment of the issue from the standpoint of a textbook on government". Is Paul likely to suggest that all global warming propaganda on school curricula comes with a 'balancing' message from climate sceptics? It is perfectly legitimate to argue that that global warming has achieved such prominence not because of scientific certainty, but because of activism, and because of political environmentalism. As we have pointed out, <A HREF="http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/04/return-of-precautionary-principle.html" REL="nofollow">it is the precautionary principle which drives international political efforts to mitigate climate change</A>. The precautionary principle, and environmentalism have thrived in an era of risk management, risk avoidance, and nervousness about the future. To try to understand contemporary politics - and the role of contemporary science - without having a perspective on the cultural context of the post-cold-war world is like trying to understand mid-late 20th century politics without any knowledge of World War 2.<BR/><BR/>Paul trots out the familiar line "You are free, of course, to disagree with the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists". Well, it's clearly not true that there is the freedom to disagree with climate orthodoxy - as we point out in a <A HREF="http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/04/no-to-debate-no-to-democracy.html" REL="nofollow">previous post</A> on this topic. And the 'overwhelming majority of the world's scientists'? What majority? How was it measured? Who says? What did they agree to? Who took the poll? When? Paul's appeal for 'facts' appear to rest on a fiction. The irony will be lost on him, of course.<BR/><BR/>"The authors' job is to teach government, not take a side on the science", says Paul. But the authors don't take a side on the science. It is the not taking a side, but suggesting that there may be more than one side - and it is that which has upset FoE and Hansen. "That is not good education, but partisan indoctrination", he continues. It's fascinating that the objection to alternative perspectives is spun as a demand for objectivity and balance in the global warming debate so that, in fact, reporting two sides means to favour one. It was a pupil - apparently Paul's own son - who raised the first objections to the textbook. Yet now he is making comments which appear to imply that students are too stupid to be able to interpret political science textbooks. What makes the LaClairs of the world think that everyone else is so stupid?Editorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05223181330778875775noreply@blogger.com