Roger Pielke Jr. blames scientists for getting upset at corporate disinformation/polemics
because many of the complainants are scientists, some not even British,
another important perspective on this debate is the role of scientists
and other academics in efforts to limit the freedom of expression.
Arguably, the global scientific community shares a set of norms on the
free exchange of information that, while shaped by each of our national
and cultural settings, also transcends those situational factors.
On climate change however, some in the scientific community have
departed quite radically from support for freedom of expression. For
example, recently NASA’s James Hansen
has famously called for trials of those who have provided support for
the dissemination of skeptical perspectives on climate change, singling
out executives in energy companies.
These examples of formal and informal sanctions are all used to try
to limit the freedom of expression on the subject of climate change.
Should scientists and other academics be working for restrictions on
the freedom of expression on climate change, or perhaps sanctions for
those expressing or allowing the expression of certain views? It is troubling to see academics and scientists working hard to
sanction certain people because of what they say, rather than taking on
the arguments on their merits, as frustrating and difficult a task that
might seem to be at times.
So while I don’t really have an informed or relevant position on UK
media regulations or even on the substance of the Swindle program, I do
feel strongly that the current wave of climate blasphemy that seems to
be popular among prominent scientists involved in the climate issue is
one day going to be looked back upon as a low point in this debate.
Recent Comments