Argue with facts, not censorship

Without any additional information, a casual reader would have assumed that Fusion is an organization that focuses primarily on climate change. In fact, our mission is far broader than that. We seek to bridge the divide that currently exists between scientists and humanists. We believe that this artificial separation is unnecessary and is detrimental to both factions. For this reason, we aim to foster discourse on issues that require cooperation between the two. We plan to hold events relating to other areas on which the sciences and the humanities can help one another achieve a fuller conception of the truth, such as bioethics, the science of aesthetics, and the link between art and the mind.

Global warming is one case where interdisciplinary dialogue can offer answers that neither scientists nor humanists alone can provide. In thinking about climate change, the questions we must ask ourselves involve the intersection of politics, economics and ethics. The costs of reducing the earth’s carbon dioxide output would fall primarily on developing countries like China and India, which rely disproportionately on carbon-intensive energy sources such as coal. Given this fact, how can we strike a balance between the goals of reducing poverty and reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Can wealthy nations like the United States demand that others make these sorts of sacrifices? Resolving these ethical dilemmas is a task that science alone cannot confront and demands the sort of synthesis that Fusion promotes.

In recognition of this, we asked Singer to address not only the evidence behind the theory of anthropogenic climate change but also its implications. Even if global warming is actually occurring, Singer argued, reducing carbon dioxide emissions — the proposed solution to the problem — would have drastic consequences for society. Few commentators, even among the staunchest proponents of global warming, dispute this.

Fusion’s decision should not be construed as an endorsement of Singer’s views. Just like any other campus group, we invite speakers of all stripes without either endorsing or condemning the content of their speech. Our only criterion is that the speaker be well informed. Contrary to Geronimus’ suggestion that Singer lacks credibility, he has spent several decades studying climate science and has published several books on the subject. Certainly if our goal was simply to give Singer a forum to espouse his ideas, we wouldn’t have also included mechanical and aerospace engineering professor Robert Socolow and geosciences professor Isaac Held GS ’76, both of whom adhere to the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

To be sure, a large majority of the scientific community finds proof of rising temperatures in the past century and attributes this trend to human activity. But, as Geronimus herself acknowledges, science is inherently uncertain. The graveyard of scientific history is littered with ideas that were once regarded as infallible but are now the subject of ridicule, such as the geocentric model of the solar system and the notion of “luminuferous ether.” This is not intended as a suggestion that global warming is destined to follow in the path of such discredited theories, but as a reminder that truth cannot be arrived at through groupthink.

We believe that, almost without exception, increasing the available amount of information and the number of different perspectives serves as a positive influence on public discourse. If climate change skeptics truly are as easily refuted as Geronimus claims, then supporters of the theory should have no cause to fear engagement with them. The best way to persuade people to accept your point of view is not to silence the alternatives, but to respond aggressively to the challenges posed by those alternatives.

Far from being ashamed of our decision to invite Singer, Fusion is proud to have contributed to the ongoing investigation into the nature and origins of climate change. Clearly the University community is eager to hear more about this topic: More than 100 people attended the debate between Singer, Socolow and Held. In the future, Fusion will continue to sponsor events that explore the connections between science and humanism, never shying from controversy and always guided by our faith that reasonable people of good will can learn from their disagreements.

Sam Norton is a politics major from Falmouth, Maine. He can be reached at snorton@princeton.edu.