My impression is that there are quite a few very selfless scientists who argue the pro environmentalist point of view
I don't think so, John. That was the point of the article. The Academics who were picked to respond did not do so in a very responsible way, IMO.
The big problem with getting an honest answer is funding and Peer approval. Because of the political nature of this debate, the "Scientists who are "Pro" get the Governmental, Academic, and Foundation funding. They also get Peer approval. The ones that are not "Pro" don't. So if your field is environmental, you had better be "Pro" if you want funding and Peer approval. If you are not "Pro" and want funding, you have to go to Industry and/or Political groups. If you do this, you are blown out of the water for doing so.
Bjørn Lomborg has been subjected to an all-out attack because he came out of the "Pro-environment" camp and published a book that was not in agreement with that group. What this article was pointing out was the methods used to attack him.
As an Academic yourself, I know you are aware of the vicious infighting that can go on within an academic specialty.
This whole issue was highlighted when the "Nuclear Winter" hypothesis blew up as the results of clouds from the Kuwait fires came in. Before the hypothesis was refuted by the fire results, a Physicist in an American University would be read out of Academia if he came out against the "Nuclear Winter" concept. afterwards, everybody pretended the concept never existed.
Right now, you cannot get, hold, or get promoted in an Academic position in environment unless you toe the line, and agree with the "Litany" I published. You had better pretend that "The Emperor has Clothes" if you want to get along. |
