An Analogy about Global Warming

The global warming controversy is the result of a lot of academics claiming that our climate is changing. These people are mostly liberal and leftist, and they are predisposed to believe that human beings are harming our planet, so their conclusion that we are causing global warming is in accord with their ideology. That alone ought to be enough to make one suspicious (just as people who believe in global warming are suspicious of the results of scientists in the pay of oil companies). Combined with other things, there is plenty of reason for skepticism. But let me make an analogy to make clear what I’m saying about predispositions.

Let’s say that academia was dominated by conservatives, and let’s say that conservative scientists claimed they had evidence that women who get abortions are unlikely to live past the age of fifty. (This is purely hypothetical.) When various people point out that they know plenty of women who got abortions who have lived past fifty and that there are some scientists who dissent from this view, the conservative scientists are unimpressed. They say first that their results have been peer reviewed, that there is a consensus, and that the science is settled. They also reply that a few counterexamples don’t refute their overall statistics, that there are still far too many women dying too young because they got an abortion when they were younger. Moreover, they point out that the scientists who dissent are all funded by abortion clinics. Eventually, an email scandal erupts in which it becomes clear that (1) there has been some fudging of data, and (2) the people at the top want to prevent those who have come up with contrary results from publishing (to redefine peer review if necessary). In addition, these scientists refuse to release their data.

This example, like that of global warming, is an example of scientists getting results that are in accord with their ideology. Would you trust these results, given that sort of accord? Keep in mind that in this example, as in the example of global warming, scientists with contrary views are vilified because of the source of their funding, while the scientists in question are supposedly doing pure research. But wouldn’t your basic instinct be to mistrust any result that fits in with a scientist’s ideological beliefs, unless there was an extraordinary amount of evidence backing it up?

Some other questions: Would you think that a “consensus” meant anything in this case? Would you think that the science was settled? Shouldn’t the refusal to release data set off alarm bells? If not, why not? Does peer review make a difference here? Isn’t it just people with similar beliefs reviewing each other’s work? Wouldn’t the statement about preventing certain people with contrary beliefs from publishing reflect negatively on the value of peer review? And wouldn’t any suggestion or hint that there was fudging of data make one mistrust everything they were saying? After all, most people won’t be experts in the area in question and they have to take experts’ statements on trust, so anything the experts say or do that is suspicious destroys that trust. So, shouldn’t one be suspicious if there is any hint of fudging of data.

I’m assuming that most liberals and leftists, if confronted with this situation, would be wholly against these conservative scientists and would be raising skeptical questions of the sort I have just raised. And that means that it is legitimate to be skeptical about global warming.