Shrinking minds

At my school, my pupils and I have just begun reading this little article in our English text book that touches on a very topical question: that of global warming.


Propaganda alert!

The article reads like a well-polished piece of propaganda for the majority voice, the members of academic circles that fully support the idea that global warming must, without question, be attributed to human activity. As a layman I've really no real basis whatever for my latent scepticism towards the conclusions drawn, among others, by the so-called UN Climate Panel. But even only a cursory knowledge of the history of the natural sciences should perhaps make experts less inclined to jump to conclusions, as time tends to unravel new pieces of research that may even wreak havoc on established truths (Did I hear Ignatius Semmelweis being mentioned?).

'Thou shalt not dissent'

What made made my baloney-meter climb noticeably this time, was the unqualified allegation that all serious scientists subscribe to the majority view that earth's climate will eventually be destroyed by humans, unless governments and people of good sense immediately start collaborating to curb the rate at which COz is currently being emitted into the atmosphere. Well and fine so far, but then it glared into view: "and everybody else (minority view scientists) are either hired by the oil industry, with a view to more or less distort the truth to calm large-scale consumers of fossil fuels" (paraphrase).

My mind started racing back to an unspecified point in time when I, again, accidentally came across a small news item stating that hundreds of natural scientists had signed a document openly criticizing the conclusions made by the UN expert panel. Wow! Dissenters to the great, universally accepted truth supported even by the former US Vice President, the Nobel laureate Al Gore.

Paying for your insolence

Let me get this straight: I'm not as preposterous as to believe that I can somehow review or counter the findings of leading experts in the field of climatology. But, as stated before, I do tend to grow wary when people with PhD's get lambasted and scoffed at simply for not agreeing with the overwhelming majority of peer scientists. Their chief sin, it seems, is daring to raise questions or objections. They think independently, thus they are immediately brought to trial - and made to suffer for this insolence.

Today scientists are almost without exception regarded as the only providers of facts and finds that may help humankind achieve true progress. How ironical, then, that the same gifted minds may actually find themselves fighting their, and our own, interests as they totally close their brains to the possibility that even majorities may commit grave mistakes. And so, instead of expanding our minds, they end up shrinking them.