Who are you to deny global warming? — VOICES for REASON

I sometimes receive questions from readers such as the following:

Q: I consider myself a strong free-market advocate and a fan of Ayn Rand’s writings. However, I find your denial of rising global temperatures to be contradictory to Rand’s view that we should follow the facts of reality based on reason and objective knowledge. You are not a climate scientist (your bio says “PhD in theoretical physics”), so how are you qualified to draw conclusions about global warming? If the only fact we have on which to base a conclusion is that many experts support the existence of global warming, then isn’t it only rational, under Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, to conclude that global warming is, in fact, a problem?

Here’s my answer:

A: First of all, let me clarify that I am not in “denial of rising global temperatures.” There is no question that the earth is warmer today than it has been since the start of systematic thermometer records. But it is also true that the start of that record happens to coincide with the end of a relatively cold period in recent climate history—one characterized by a little ice age. The issue is not whether temperatures are warmer today than they were a century ago, but whether the increase in global temperature can be solidly attributed to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. There are many reasons to question the claim that the causal link to human activity has been definitively established. And there are strong reasons to question the lurid, catastrophic predictions made by proponents of global warming theory.

Everyone who participates in the political process has a responsibility to judge controversial issues for themselves. When it comes to technical scientific questions that have major policy implications, one must often rely on the testimony of experts, but not by surrendering one’s judgment to them. In such situations, one must judge the experts themselves. Are they credible? Are there other credible experts who disagree with them? Are there reasons to question the motives and the integrity of scientists advancing a certain theory?

It is true that I am not a climate scientist. But the scientific background that I do have puts me in a good position to judge the competing scientific claims that are made on this issue. My position, based on my assessment of the science and the broader policy debate surrounding it, is that even if human activity were causing large-scale changes to the climate, there is no reason to think this would constitute an unmanageable “planetary emergency” justifying the draconian regulations and economic interventions sought by environmentalists and their political fellow-travelers.

The fact is that there is a large gap between the scientific claims being advanced regarding the causes and effects of global warming and the political policies being proposed to address it. And that raises a legitimate question about whether the science itself has been corrupted by a questionable moral/political agenda.

Scientists are just as susceptible to the influence of politics and ideology as anyone else in society. And this is an important part of the context that one has to keep in mind in assessing scientific claims. Contrary to my questioner’s view, the fact that “many experts” promote the global warming scare is not the “only fact” we have on this issue. We need to keep in mind the long history of scientific distortions that have been used to advance an environmentalist agenda. My position is that global warming is the latest example of this phenomenon.

If you’re interested in Rand’s view of environmentalism, take a look at her 1970 article “The Anti-Industrial Revolution.” You can find it, as well as a penetrating analysis of the environmentalist movement by Peter Schwartz (”The Philosophy of Privation”) in the book “Return of the Primitive.”