Bad Science Isn't Free Speech

On May 18th, "13 Science, Space, and Technology Committee Republicans sent letters to 17 state attorneys general and eight environmental activist organizations. The letters request documents related to the groups’ coordinated efforts to deprive companies, nonprofit organizations, scientists and scholars of their First Amendment rights and their ability to fund and conduct scientific research free from intimidation and threats of prosecution." (from a press release from the same committee)

The letter accuses the "Green 20", a group of environmentally minded legislators and activists, of restricting first amendment rights in order to push a political agenda coping with climate change.

Honestly, I think my title covers most of the point I want to make. Yes, Americans have the right to say whatever they want without fear of persecution from the government, and I would not want to live in a country without that inalienable right. However, purposefully using wrong and misleading information under the guise of free speech to exploit the people is morally untenable and a laughable charade.

If there wasn't a scientific consensus, or if the data was not so conclusive that quite nearly all the scientists in the world agreed, I would welcome a hearty debate on the subject based in fact and research efforts. However, the science is in on climate change. 98 percent of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic forcing is causing the shifts in the climate that we are observing. There is no longer a debate to be had. From this point on, any law or policy maker denying climate change might as well be trying to say the sky is not blue, but rather pink, and the scientific community is just trying to push its blue agenda to destroy American jobs.

I do not think you should be able to cite freedom of speech as a reason to use false information to allow policy makers to maintain the status quo. It's cherry picking at its finest and that practice should be beneath the policy makers of this country.

I have a thought experiment to help show why cherry picking information can have disastrous consequences.

Let's say there is an ageing bridge crossing a river. It looks structurally sound, but you want to be sure before your drive your new Lexus on it. You call up one hundred engineers and ask them to inspect the bridge. All but two of the engineers say the bridge will collapse if you drive across it. Who would you listen to with your life and your car in the balance?

To be more pointed, would you rather trust three or four scientific studies paid for by oil and petroleum companies with dubious methods and results, or the thousands of studies run by the leading climatologists in the world that have been corroborated over and over again by the scientific method that tell us that greenhouse gasses released by humans are causing global climate change?

Even beyond that, what are the consequences of shifting our energy sources to renewable and green technologies? Would it be so bad to have a cleaner environment, without smog and oil spills, just for that fact alone? Yes in the short run it will be painful. People will lose jobs in the oil industry, and prices of energy will go up, but we will create new jobs in the renewable energy industry, jobs that can be created in the US not in Saudi Arabia or Iraq. Technological innovation driven by competition will drive down prices again just as they do with the oil industry.

It will not be easy, but to paraphrase JFK, we do not do things because they are easy, but because they are hard. We have a chance to work towards a better, cleaner future but we must stop letting bad science and misinformation cloud our judgement. Bad science isn't free speech, it is misinformation told to keep you complacent with the status quo.