Is there global warming 'truth'?

Is there global warming 'truth'?

By SALIM MANSUR

There is little disagreement in the media that Al Gore is greatly
responsible for bringing the subject of man-made global warming into
the public glare. Gore has been on a roll since the Academy Awards
gave his film, An Inconvenient Truth, the prize for the best
documentary of the year, and it will not be a surprise if the
Norwegian Nobel committee awards him the peace prize for his efforts
in the push to end man-made global warming.

Science and politics have co-existed in an uneasy relationship for a
very long time. The reason is simple. In science "truth" is meant to
be independent of human preferences and its discovery occurs through
the scientific method of conjectures and refutations.

In politics "truth" is often a claim made on the basis of some
authority -- church, charismatic leader, majority opinion in a
democracy -- and selective evidence.

Politicians since Archimedes in ancient Greece have sought advice of
scientists in the making of public policy. Yet there is a difference
between open and closed societies in how scientific advice is sought
and given, and in protecting the delicate balance between science and
society.

The Gore phenomenon in an open society has placed science and politics
at odds in a manner that is somewhat new. We are observing how
celebrity status of a politician (or a former politician) in the media
may bend the rules of science to serve a particular public policy.

Gore insists the causal connection between human activity and global
warming is proven by consensus, and there are many scientists who
agree.

But there is another body of scientific opinion that questions such
consensus, and it views proposals for cutting back carbon emission as
too heavy-handed and will do more damage to the economy of countries
like Canada than the expected good.

I recall a neat story about Albert Einstein when asked how he felt
that some 200 German scientists assembled by the Nazi regime had
declared his science was bad. Einstein replied that all it took was
one scientist to prove him wrong.

Gore and his supporters can draw upon science for their politics,
reconcile contradictions between what they do and what they profess,
and may even turn a profit out of the public policy they promote
without breaking any laws.

Gore is the founding chairman of Generation Investment, a company
established in 2004. It provides business with assessments of "risks
and opportunities presented by climate change" for long term
profitability, said David Blood, Gore's partner and former CEO of
Goldman Sachs Asset Management.

Science is expected to be value-free and politically neutral. But
scientists are human and not entirely immune to politics, especially
when science is dependent on public-funding.

The insistence by Gore that his moral crusade is scientifically
unimpeachable is confusing to that segment of the public who genuinely
want to understand what to make of the unsettled debate among
scientists about climate change and global warming. To resort to smear
by parties on either side of the debate only deepens the suspicion of
political considerations driving science.

We know from recent past experiences, however, that long-term
predictions on issues where human agency and nature intersect -- such
as population or renewable resources -- turned out differently.

This record of science being fallible might be a small consolation.
Yet it is a helpful reminder. Scientists, when true to their vocation,
will ask of the public not to abandon skepticism as a "truth" seeking
tool -- unlike politicians in general being insistent on consensus
when "truth" is uncertain.

.