You've nicely identified the real problem. It is not the science, it is the politicizing of the science. Science has nothing to do with politics, so identifying a scientific hypothesis like Hansen's with left or right politics is nuts. Why do you suppose this AGW issue had it's name changed to "climate change" in the first place, and why did it become a political football? I think the answer, as always, relates to money, human emotion, and damaged pride. Once individuals become emotionally involved in what should be a science issue, they become incapable of doing dispassionate scientific inquiry. That, in my opinion, is precisely what happened to James Hansen. He is human after all. He is, so to speak, now like a thoroughbred with a gimpy leg. The only humane thing to do is to shoot him and save him from further pain.
As a guide to .what can happen to science once it is politicized we have a number of fine examples such as the Lysenko affair --my personal favorite-- and the eugenics movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Currently we have both "climate change" and "fracking". These subjects can not be dispassionately approached by many because they are thoroughly wrapped up with commerce and thus politics. Fortunately there are still many scientists who are able to maintain their integrity despite a political fracas. And naturally these folks become the target for all manner of ad hominem attacks, and their science is automatically dismissed by those who have fallen victim to common wisdom driven by politics and emotion. I am not going to go so far as Gore Vidal who said "common wisdom is nearly always wrong", but I do believe it often is. There are many examples to prove this point.
Last edited:
moment by totally making and missing my point both at the same time.