It’s easy to uncover the motive here. Assuming a global warming mitigation effort will center first around regulation, cap and trade programs, and other governmental involvement in greenhouse emissions, it requires no intellectual gymnastics to connect the dots and realize that neither conservatives nor industry lobbyists want that regulation. Global warming skeptic turned non-skeptical heretic Ronald Bailey, writing for Reason, said it perfectly when he admitted that “as a skeptic of government action, I had hoped that the scientific evidence would lead to the conclusion that global warming would not be much of a problem, so that humanity could avoid the messy and highly politicized process of deciding what to do about it.” (Bailey, 2006) This is hardly a comforting realization, particularly if you pretend to entertain portraits of intellectually honest contrarians.
Back to the obverse of this coin, we have the allegation that the strong scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic global warming is an illusion cast by the granters of funds. The contrarians say as much: “To justify their funding, they have to show a huge problem.” (Lucas, 2007) In the face of the apparently lucrative contrarian positions on offer from the think tank and lobbying industries, one wonders how strong this allegation can remain. Beyond that, is the claim logically sound? Wouldn’t claims of uncertainty underscore the need for more research and thus generate more grants than claims of certainty? Why would American scientists hold a consensus position in the face of a grant-giving government under the influence of such an anti-science and climate-skeptic administration? When government scientists are being told not to speak out about climate change and even having their reports altered to remove references to “global warming” or “climate change”, why would this same government be expected to only give grant money to pro-consensus researchers? (Connor, 2007; Associated Press, 2007) It doesn’t make sense. There seems to be little or no reason to feign certainty for the sake of a grant check.
If the gatekeepers of scientific literature are blocking the contrarian position, why would they do it if not for the money?
The Argument From “You Should Be Ashamed Of Yourself”
When I first wrote about global warming in 2004, I included the sentence “environmentalism is the Catholic church of popular science” to illustrate the idea that guilt was the motivating factor in many environmental worldviews, including radical positions supporting anthropogenic global warming. (Jennings, 2004) I still think this is the case – I hardly associate myself with or take seriously the dreadlocked me-too followers of environmental Puritanism who harbor a haunting fear that someone, somewhere might be happy while the Earth is dying. And this is exactly the brush with which the vocal contrarians – particularly the skeptical nonscientists of the group – attempt to paint any supporter of the mainstream consensus: as a milquetoast enviro-weenie eco-fascist you-oughtta-be-ashamed-of-yourself-for-living-so-well hippie. This gross mischaracterization (which consists of at least three logical fallacies) is particularly handy in fueling such straw man attacks as those against Al Gore’s monthly electric bill (while ignoring inconvenient facts like the former Vice President’s far-from-average consumption profile; the premium he pays for green power from his utility; and the carbon offsets he purchases) (All Things Considered, 2007).
According to this guilt-theory, the scientific consensus is informed not by science but by the desire of the left-wing international intellectual community to illustrate how awful we should all feel about having built such a marvelous global economy on the back of fossil fuels. In this model, the United States is unfairly made into a bad guy not because they produce the most greenhouse emissions but because they’ve made the most money. And those evil liberals want to take all that money away from America and give it to the Chinese and the Indians, who in case you didn’t know, were exempted from that self-flagellating document they wrote up in Kyoto. The radio pundits push this point so strongly I fully expect to see “You can have my Hummer when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers” bumper stickers showing up on SUVs.
Tangentially related to this point is the Right’s general mistrust of anything International, especially the United Nations. With the key document describing the problem of global warming coming from a UN group called the “Intergovernmental Panel” it’s no surprise to see so many contrarians from conservative ranks.
The burden of proof works against this argument: it is not the responsibility of the scientific community to show that they are not motivated by an attempt to guilt the world into giving up fossil fuels for undefined nefarious purposes. Instead, the contrarians making the claim need to support the claim with more than “because I said so” tactics. The notion that scientists are simply liberal America-hating hippies is not in evidence. The skeptical view isn’t underrepresented in the literature because it’s unpopular, but because it is wrong – to claim otherwise is a whine made of sour grapes.