Last Friday, in a talk boldly titled “Climate Change: Science or New World Religion?,” Princeton University physics professor William Happer denied that rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are causing global warming. Dr. Happer argued that the consequences of more carbon dioxide are wildly exaggerated and unsupported by observational evidence. Computer models that predict dire rises in sea level and deadly expansions of tropical disease are based on false assumptions, including an unproven feedback mechanism that causes global temperatures to snowball.
Dr. Happer presented a barrage of graphical evidence that Earth has in fact been cooling for the past decade and global temperature is unlinked to carbon dioxide concentration, contrary to the premises and predictions of most computer models. He likened today’s climate change movement to the Temperance movement of the early 20th century: both are composed of deeply sincere people that think they are saving the world from the evils of the demon rum or noxious carbon dioxide. By codifying moral mass hysteria, Prohibitionists made it impossible to express dissent, even on purely medical or scientific grounds, without being labeled a friend of the Devil. From beer to atmospheric gas, the tyranny of the majority conjures frightening specters of Bradbury, Orwell and McCarthyism. Dr. Happer’s talk amounted to more than an exposition of his contrarian viewpoint — it was a warning about the danger of consensus.
Consensus is often wrong. Galileo, Copernicus, and Harvey knew this well. A brief walk through history reveals many more. The Aztecs at one time determined that 20,000 annual human sacrifices were necessary to keep the sun moving across the sky; unhappy fodder played an important subversive role in the Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire. In the early 20th century, scientific consensus justified the sterilization of “imbeciles” in California and Virginia, and the incarceration and murder of Jews in Nazi Germany. Scientific consensus is a dangerous notion.
Dr. Happer’s views sparked vigorous debate. While some audience members applauded his courage, others challenged his data and interpretations. The Green Amherst Project, a group that thinks carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for climate change, attacked Dr. Happer’s views, particularly on the social welfare implications of rising temperature.
Dr. Happer, for his part, believes that slightly higher temperatures will benefit society by lengthening growing seasons and boosting crop yields. Yet he fails to understand that the poor, burdened by the lack of economic agility, invariably bear the brunt of environmental change.
To the neutral observer, Dr. Happer’s case was weakened by his overt personal attacks on popular climate scientists in the opposite camp. He accused outspoken climate scientist Michael Mann, the creator of the infamous “hockey stick graph” that suggests a recent sharp rise in temperature caused by human activities, of practicing “bad science.” He also questioned the motives of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists, asserting that they produce dire reports of global warming only to sustain their foundation and hence their livelihoods. While Dr. Happer’s arguments are plausible, they reveal a personal agenda that may impinge on his scientific rationality. In this respect, Dr. Happer fails to rise above the moral arguments that he accuses his opponents of employing.
Dr. Happer’s own motives have been questioned. He is the chairman of the board of directors at the George C. Marshall Institute, which receives funding from ExxonMobil and has published numerous reports attacking the Kyoto protocol and undermining climate science. Dr. Happer patently denied any affiliation with petroleum companies. This subplot is difficult to unravel, but Dr. Happer appears genuine in his beliefs.
Only time will tell if Dr. Happer is correct about climate change, but the value of his argument goes beyond its immediate logic. Science, just like democracy, requires and thrives on unrestricted debate of contrary beliefs. Dissenting opinions, right or wrong, are the lifeblood of science and democracy. On an issue as contentious and uncertain as climate change, open dialogue is a must. Dr. Happer is right about one thing: at its heart, the debate is scientific, and we can’t afford to let moral baggage subvert our rationality.