“Scientific Consensus” Equals Moral High Ground

A few weeks ago, the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Marlo Lewis published an article opposing mandatory limits on carbon-dioxide emissions, arguing that Congress should not impose caps until the technology exists to produce energy that doesn’t depend on carbon dioxide. In response to Lewis’s reasonable piece, the president of the American Council on Renewable Energy, Michael Eckhart, issued a threat:

“Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America.”

It has been my experience that more people defend The Truth the less likely it is true. It was an extremely bad idea for scientists to vote on global warming’s existence. It has and will continue to lead to yet more moral heavy handedness.

One Response to ““Scientific Consensus” Equals Moral High Ground”

  1. boose Says:

    So, the more that you defend the unimportance of global warming, the less likely it’s true? I’m sorry but that statement sounds absurd. I guess I should just go around acting really apathetic because that way I’d know i was right.

Leave a Reply