The CRU had what the BBC called a “key role” in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report — AR4, the subject of the e-mails the scientists discussed. Proponents of major efforts to cut carbon emissions in America and abroad have cited this report, with supporters citing its bias-free science. It helped garner a Nobel Peace Prize.
In the rest of the e-mails, the group pondered dodging freedom-of-information requests, withholding information, finding favorable data and boycotting a journal that published opponents’ work. One of these scientists wrote about feeling tempted to “beat the [climate] out of” one skeptic. Not exactly a civil exchange of ideas.
The plotting at the CRU casts doubt on the integrity of some of the climate change research in general circulation. Global warming is something that a majority of citizens have come to accept as rock-solid fact. The Earth is getting warmer because of emissions of greenhouse gases. But clearly these e-mails suggest that the current theory has some problems. Otherwise, there would be no need to stifle dissent, delete e-mails and cherry-pick data. We should be considering just how reliable our knowledge of global warming is, and whether our campus and community should ask more questions.
This discussion isn’t meant to evaluate the merits or flaws of particular global warming theories. The current predictions may be dead-on, or we could be headed down an expensive and foolish path. All I argue is that there we should have a legitimate debate about the findings and our best possible responses; the ultimate goal being the best possible information on a serious topic. These all but ignored e-mails call us to task for not having such a debate.
The experts, it seems, have let us down. In fact, a minority of scientists has been addressing questions about the science, like just how fast and how serious the problem will be. Some economists, including Bjorn Lomborg, have considered what the best societal response to global warming should be in light of other pressing questions like malaria or AIDS. Most readers probably haven’t heard of these works. That suggests that we’re failing to explore all of the available information and ask all of the plausible questions. In short, society is not skeptically engaging on this issue.
We should strive to ask responsible questions, maintain healthy skepticism and only then make decisions on important issues. The skeptic need not fall into the trap of failing to ever take a stance. Skepticism here does not mean a jaded withdrawal from issues deemed irrelevant, foolish or worthless. It means instead healthy questioning as part of a process of engagement.
That being said, everything deserves skepticism, but everything does not need to be rejected. Rejection is simply the most noticeable outcome of intellectual review. We should be careful to defer to established information and experts, but never blindly. They have a place in the debate, but so does the individual.
In particular, college campuses have been strangely calm. One would expect that we might witness heated debate in the halls and dorms about the merits of theories and counter theories. Of course, I’m no “down with the Man!” rabble rouser, and one suspects that some college protesters of eras past acted simply out of uninformed, blind rebellion. But intelligent skepticism on this issue, and so many others, should be most at home among authority-questioning college students. Perhaps some students see defiance in rejecting our parents’ lifestyles and associated greenhouse gases, but that shouldn’t preclude a process of careful skepticism.
In a more general sense, everything in the classroom and public policy should be subjected to this skeptical engagement. Simple acceptance of an answer, whether from a liberal hero like Al Gore or an equally idolized conservative, should never suffice. Questions about new information should power constructive examinations of others’ conclusions.
In our 20 or so years, we have sometimes had to accept things on faith as children. But in adulthood, the vibrancy of a mind lies in its tendency to carefully question before accepting, rejecting or modifying. The responsibility of that mind lies in how it uses that skepticism. If we fail to fulfill either count, we are deceiving ourselves intellectually and personally.
Brian Lipshutz is a sophomore from Lafayette Hill, Pa. He can be reached at lipshutz@princeton.edu.
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
