Antone's Nightclub
Why Argue Against Scientific Consensus?
RECEIVED Mon., March 8, 2010
Dear Editor,
In a press statement explaining the reasoning behind the state of Texas’ frivolous lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency, Attorney General Greg Abbott referred to the International Panel on Climate Change as a “scandal-plagued international organization” that is guilty of “improper conduct.” What scandal is he referring to exactly? Would it be last year’s public unveiling of a series of private e-mails from East Anglia University? Is hacking into a university e-mail server proper conduct? Furthermore, is hacked e-mail content a valid basis for unnecessary litigation? What about the recent revelation that Exxon-Mobil has directed almost $16 million to a group of 43 lobby groups in an effort to create the illusion of doubt or confusion on the issue of global warming? Is that one of the scandals he mentions?
This simply isn't good enough. To argue against scientific consensus is to take on the burden of proof. Anyone can toss around terms like "faulty data,” but they mean very little unless Abbott, Gov. Rick Perry, or Commissioner Todd Staples can produce data of their own. Until they can present “objective, unbiased science” refuting the damaging effects of greenhouse gases, I will remain convinced that these straw-man tactics are merely a cover for an effort to protect the profit margins of the Texas petrochemical sector. And I suppose it’s merely a coincidence that this grand bit of legal wrangling comes at a time when Perry is trying to secure re-election by painting himself as a proud Texan who wouldn’t dare let Washington’s clean-air initiatives interfere with the interests of “the larger Texas economy,” as Abbott so succinctly put it. To stand in opposition to federal legislation is one thing; to pretend that this opposition is grounded in science that they know anything about is entirely another.
In a press statement explaining the reasoning behind the state of Texas’ frivolous lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency, Attorney General Greg Abbott referred to the International Panel on Climate Change as a “scandal-plagued international organization” that is guilty of “improper conduct.” What scandal is he referring to exactly? Would it be last year’s public unveiling of a series of private e-mails from East Anglia University? Is hacking into a university e-mail server proper conduct? Furthermore, is hacked e-mail content a valid basis for unnecessary litigation? What about the recent revelation that Exxon-Mobil has directed almost $16 million to a group of 43 lobby groups in an effort to create the illusion of doubt or confusion on the issue of global warming? Is that one of the scandals he mentions?
This simply isn't good enough. To argue against scientific consensus is to take on the burden of proof. Anyone can toss around terms like "faulty data,” but they mean very little unless Abbott, Gov. Rick Perry, or Commissioner Todd Staples can produce data of their own. Until they can present “objective, unbiased science” refuting the damaging effects of greenhouse gases, I will remain convinced that these straw-man tactics are merely a cover for an effort to protect the profit margins of the Texas petrochemical sector. And I suppose it’s merely a coincidence that this grand bit of legal wrangling comes at a time when Perry is trying to secure re-election by painting himself as a proud Texan who wouldn’t dare let Washington’s clean-air initiatives interfere with the interests of “the larger Texas economy,” as Abbott so succinctly put it. To stand in opposition to federal legislation is one thing; to pretend that this opposition is grounded in science that they know anything about is entirely another.
Ciaran McCloskey
San Marcos
San Marcos