While reading my local paper The Port Washington News, I happened upon what appears to pass for an op-ed piece these days. It was penned by a Robert McMillan ("Where Is Al Gore?" Friday, 12 March 2010 00:00), who describes himself as “Of Council” with a local legal firm. I discovered on a Google search (this from a Massachusetts government site) that “of council” might mean he’s “the guy down the hall who is available to discuss cases over coffee.” When not being consulted on a pro bono basis, Mr. McMillan apparently spends time freezing his golden years off in Florida, and he’s not too happy about it.
Mr. McMillan opens his argument thusly: “Again, let me state that I am not a scientist.” This is an interesting if grammatically oblique way to begin, but I guess that’s his modus operandi. As it turns out his argument should’ve ended right there, but then Mr. McMillan has time on his hands to hone his style, which involves muddling over selected “facts” he’s chosen to champion.
Mr. McMillan claims to value the facts. He is mistaken. What he values are selected statistics that support his personal world view, in a kind of “If the glove don’t fit…” strategy. And so in an effort to discredit the overwhelming evidence presented by credible science that shows causative links between human activity and whatever phrase he would choose to pick for climate change (Please do pick one for yourself, sir, and I’ll oblige you. Thomas Friedman, in his intensely researched Hot, Flat and Crowded has coined the charming term “global weirding,” but at 448 pages I suspect it contains more facts than you might wish to digest), he embarks on an ad hominem attack of one of the political Right’s favorite targets, Al Gore.
McMillan begins with an a priori assertion that mankind’s contribution to global warming (I am comfortable with the term, as it accurately describes, on a global scale, changes that can have interesting side effects on local environments), and by extension the very question of global warming, is absurd. Absurd? Thanks for your assessment, counselor. As you like to mention, you’re not a scientist. Cream and sugar?
Our dedicated layperson then goes a-hunting for a scapegoat, metal detector at the ready. His first salvo is the veiled implication that old Al pretty much dreamt up this bogus crisis on his own, the sore loser. But the kicker is the once widely disseminated, and debunked, assertion that Mr. Gore claimed to have “invented” the Internet. It is one of those despicably effective strategies used by political hacks on the mentally infirm: that of the fallacious, distracting personal attack. Is this about Mr. Gore, sir? Hey, it sure is if it means a lower tax rate on my Boca condo!
I don’t know which is the most culpable transgressor when it comes to the dissemination of statistical garbage - disgruntled simpletons, their pied pipers, or newspapers caught in the dare I say evolutionary throws of technological change. But I would encourage the staff at the News to consider that while there are at the very least two sides to every legitimate argument, not all merit equal soapbox time; certainly not those posited by individuals unqualified to join the debate. Think “myth of the six million” if that helps.
I’m reminded of this every time a news outlet feels the quaint urge to find out what the “man on the street” is thinking. Not too much beyond the sports scores, it turns out, and yet somehow editors feel the compulsion to get to the meat of a Star Wars debate by soliciting the opinion of Joe the Plumber. I tell you what: I’d prefer Joe just sticks to the task at hand, i.e. my leaking toilet, thanks a bunch.
Let’s use a simple analogy to explain Mr. McMillan’s argument, since I know his fans appreciate simplicity:
Bob has recently received a call from his primary care physician, whom we’ll call Dr. Al, just for fun. Dr. Al (the kind of scientist who tends to cause agita in his more venerable patients) is concerned about the results of a blood test performed on Bob. Bob’s total cholesterol count is on the high side, as is his LDL. Forget that cholesterol hadn’t yet been “invented” when Bob was a kid. Bob feels just fine, and even remembers that as a youngster he found himself more frequently out of breath than he does now. When he pricks himself, Bob bleeds smooth red blood, with none of that cottage-cheesy stuff depicted in pharmaceutical cartoons in the waiting room mags.
Dr. Al wants Bob to change his eating habits, alter his sedentary lifestyle, and he wants to put Bob on prescription medication. Bob still doesn’t know what LDL is, but he’s heard some scary things about Crestor from his four hundred pound neighbor, Eddie. Anyway, why can’t he just take an aspirin, which doesn’t require a prescription, costs almost nothing, and is about twice the size (ergo twice the efficacy) of the prescribed medicine? Plus, the folks at Bristol-Meyers (yes, Bob has his own scientists in his corner) say their aspirin is the best. The whole thing is just… ABSURD!
What’s with Bob’s principled stand against his doctor’s advice? Simple. Bob hates exercise, and loves his South Florida morning expeditions to Cracker Barrel for the hefty he-man combo, which he now must don a cardigan for, doggonit, because the Sunshine State is too damn cold!
And so are all the other states right now, as Bob falls victim to his own argument. He states, ipso facto, “We often forget that there are climate changes every 10,000 years or so...” Really? Does it not dawn on him that this uncontested fact, hardly obvious from a glance out the picture window, is fodder for his argument due to the remarkable research of the very scientists whom he now dismisses because of a Tallahassee cold snap?
Because yes, there are cycles, and there are cycles within cycles, and there are other cycles overlapping those. Then there are peculiar (to the simple-minded) anomalies that might lead one to believe just about anything, such as that there are angels in the sky protecting us from our own worst impulses. It gets complicated, and requires studied attention, not casual disdain. The challenge is to observe and identify the various cycles, understand the regular ones and their periods and interplay, and note where something new and different is insinuating itself.
Sometimes you have to pay attention to people with more experience than you, much as you’d rather just lounge carefree under a palm tree downing gin and tonics until everything starts to feel warm and cozy again down in the Everglades. And I don’t mean the “scientists” at Bristol Meyers, and I certainly don’t mean our political leaders, if by them you mean Sarah Palin and her ilk. Because gosh, she knows everything is gonna be just fine, what with her excellent Tundra view of the future.
And yes, I have engaged in an ad hominem attack, because I believe Mr. McMillan advances an argument bereft of intellectual merit. But if he thinks it imprudent to honestly weigh professional opinion until more compelling information surfaces, he’s certainly free to wait for a sign. Like, for instance, a fibrillating heart.
We need not fear for our ex-barrister. After a career of twenty-eight-hour billable days he’ll always be able to afford a plot of land on the high ground, regardless of the present sea level. Those we should worry for are our poor print journalists, who have spaces to fill with, something… controversial, to stir things up, and generate ad revenue. Because that’s good journalism.
Take heart, Anton Publications. The Flat Earth Society is still in business, and I’m sure they’d be willing to fill a few column inches for you. Just look to the western horizon. There, for anyone with a pair of eyes and a lick of common sense to see it, lies the end of the world, at Co-Op City.
Paul Koestner, a citizen of Port Washington with a view of Co-Op City, is not a scientist either, but then it’s a free country, after all.