Exageration rationalized

Patrick J. Michaels makes a point about where a lack of intellectual integrity may lead in his Washing Times column Gore’s inconvenient lie.

It’s a sad fact that some scientists, and scientist wannabes (like Mr. Gore) take this tack, because it will only weaken the public’s growing distrust in what they perceive is a scientific elite that leaves them out of the feedback loop. Presumably safe drugs develop unforeseen and fatal side effects. Engineers charged to protect a major city build levees that crash in what (in New Orleans) was a modest hurricane. Their hybrid cars don’t get the mileage EPA says they will.

That’s “The Inconvenient Truth” about global warming. Prominent scientists feel it’s perfectly fine to exaggerate, and so does the former vice president.

In other words, the ends justify the means.

If indeed the evidence was as conclusive as Mr. Gore wishes it were then the histrionics would not be necessary. There would be no need to exagerate or mislead. There would be no need to accuse conspiracy to censor.

Instead the issues could be discussed rationally with evidence and logic used as talking points and issues of accuracy and precision properly considered. Sadly, getting to this level looks to be a rather long row to hoe.

Comments are closed.