A famous Carl Sagan quote definitely applies to Paul Krugman’s editorial in today’s New York Times.
“In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
Mr. Krugman’s editorial, Points of No Return, describes how if you are not a climate change denier it will get you excommunicated from the Republican Party.
From the editorial:
“Think of it this way: Once upon a time it was possible to take climate change seriously while remaining a Republican in good standing. Today, listening to climate scientists gets you excommunicated — hence Mr. Rubio’s statement, which was effectively a partisan pledge of allegiance.
And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the G.O.P.’s extremist fringe asserted that global warming was a hoax concocted by a vast global conspiracy of scientists (although even then that fringe included some powerful politicians). Today, such conspiracy theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against scientists reporting evidence of warming have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about climate science is turning into hostility toward science in general.
It’s hard to see what could reverse this growing hostility to inconvenient science. As I said, the process of intellectual devolution seems to have reached a point of no return. And that scares me more than the news about that ice sheet. “
I have repeatedly contacted my Republican representative, Ann “Climate Change Denier” Wagner about this issue. If I select “Other” in the subject line I get no response. Obviously the “other” category requires an actual human to respond. If I select “Environment” the software kicks back to me a standard form letter detailing how climate science is in its infancy. To quote from one of her form letters:
“Our policy response to this dilemma should not be based on inconsistent and unsound science or driven by the fear of a supposed catastrophe.”
How sad.
Science is the best tool we have for understanding our world. How disturbing it is that a major political party has a dogmatic stance that marginalizes this tool. I may be wrong, but it seems to boil to the greed of a relatively small number of individuals who are not really worried about paying it forward to our children and grandchildren.
How really sad.
So it goes.