I do not believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW)

There, said it. Out in the open. 

There are lots of reasons really but theyare irrelevant to this essay. Because this essay is not about AGW or climatechange or environmentalism. Instead, this essay is about thinking. And whatit’s like to profess something at Western outside of the mainstream of acceptedthought.

Iconoclast. That’s a label I could livewith. But it’s not one usually applied to me. I am a “denier”, an “ideologue”,an idiot, a joke. This is an essay on why I am not considered an iconoclast atWestern and what it is like to work in an atmosphere that is intolerant ofindividualism.

An iconoclast is a nonconformist, a rebel, adissenter or radical who attacks cherished beliefs and traditional institutionsas being based on error or superstition. It is a term of respect and most oftenused in the arts or humanities for individual thinkers who inspire others toview the accepted paradigms of a culture in new and challenging ways.

So why am I not an iconoclast? Well academiahas this propensity for embracing radicals only from the left, those thatespouse socialist politics. Those who advocate social justice and the overthrowof the accepted evils of capitalism. Those who embrace the mantra ofestablished radicalism i.e. intellectualism.

Me? Well my politics are the politics ofJefferson and Locke, of Hayek and Milton Friedman. I am a dynamist (not a termfamiliar to most). OK, a libertarian then. Well that gets some recognition butthe explanation most jump to is the less useful and more sweeping label ofright–winger. To which they then add their own descriptors: capitalist,corporatist, etc.. Their views reflect a perspective that maintains that theleft is a diverse and complicated political spectrum, but the right just amonolith of commonality and indifference. Purely Bush league.

My area of expertise is resource management.The prevailing paradigm is that of sustainability. So far, so good. But theintellectual orthodoxy for sustainability has but one branch: it is smallscale, local (except for supra-national, government and non-governmentinstitutions), moralist, regulatory, dependent upon theoretical constructs(like the precautionary principle and the ecological footprint), imbedded withmyths and rituals (Silent Spring, Earth Day) and stuck in the reactionarypolitics of 1960s activism.

I spent the best part of 20 years as anapostolate perfecting the dogma of soft-green environmental ideology. In themid-1990s I began to respond to the growing disconnect I observed between theacademic study of sustainability and the real world of environmental problemsand issues.

After an extended period of engagement withNGOs, businesses and government agencies in the implementation of environmentalsolutions, I realised that an alternative approach was needed: one that did nottake as axiomatic all of the cherished constructs that environmentalist dogmaused to justify its persistence with 1960s advocacy of awareness, moregovernance and increased economic intervention.

After much reading and reflection, I foundthere was a sound philosophical and ideological basis for an alternativeperspective within the sustainability paradigm. A perspective based onindividual responsibility, capacity building and the dynamics of change.

In my innocence and belief in academicfreedom, I believed an alternative perspective would be both welcomed andrespected. To my dismay, it has been neither.

I recently gave a talk to the Senior Alumni.It was entitled ‘Global Warming and other Eco-myths’. A reporter from theWestern News covered the talk and it made the cover story. Nothing unusualabout that, except for the reaction my talk and the paper’s coverage provoked. Seniorprofessors wrote despairingly of the Western News for giving me the time ofday. How can they be a real newspaper and give press to an “ideologue”? At thevery least, the paper should publish text “correcting” what I had said.

It seems diversity in academia only extendsin one direction. I could be a radical Marxist and wear revolutionary insigniawhen I lecture and no one would say a word. In my department and onenvironmentalism, I wear a tie and slews of colleagues feel compelled to makeremarks and snarky comments. Complain to the chair you say: often it was thechair who was making the comments (no, not the present incumbent, he is anhonourable man).

I could be a Marxist and demonize Big Oil,advocate the need for UN intervention on food, security and environmentaljustice and rail against the perceived inequalities of capitalism, and no onewould try to revoke my course, query my selection of course texts or questionthe merit of student theses. But I am not. 

So instead, I question the merits of NGOactivism, government regulation, the political framing of issues, thepoliticization of science and the paucity of science underlying environmentaldogma. I focus on the facilitation of individual empowerment, on social equityand on leadership. I do so, all from the perspective of dynamist ideology. And,sadly, I have had to endure attempts to revoke one of my courses, questions tothe chair expressing reservations about the appropriateness of one of my texts(Lomborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist) and more than once, students taking whatthey have learnt from my courses have been actively dissuaded from using thatknowledge in other courses on campus.

Am I paranoid? No, there is a climate thatis not encouraging and conducive to alternative perspectives both on thiscampus and within academia generally. I am not the first to experience this,nor sadly, do I expect to be the last.

Do I irritate people? When I first startedin academia I lacked a lot of social graces and I know I rubbed a lot of peoplethe wrong way. That in itself is not unusual: many academics lack social skillsand are self-centered. I have spent a lot of effort avoiding conflict, indeedavoiding those it appears I irritate. But it doesn’t change things.

So why the cold climate? Intolerance. Wespeak a good game. And after all academia is constructed upon intellectualfreedom and it is enshrined within the tenure system. But within that pretenceis an unspoken premise that if one is to be a radical; it had better be alongpre-approved lines and within safe parameters. Don’t bite the hand that feedsyour discipline, make sure you keep up the grant/grad student/publish/grantcycle and definitely don’t stop long enough to reflect, comment and select analternative perspective, media for expression and popularize that perspectivewith the students.

I hope this article offends you and you takeumbrage with the scenario I have painted. It won’t remove nor devalue thepersonal hurts I have experienced over the past 10 to 15 years, but youroffence will indicate that you disagree and will not allow such intolerancewithin your sphere of influence.

Show me that the concept of open-mindednessis alive and well in academia and at Western. Go ahead; prove me wrong withyour actions. Maybe today, even read the National Post and not just the Globeand Mail. Be really daring and read my blog (privately and not so that anyoneknows). Iconoclast.  Source

Write comment
Name:
Email:
Subject:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."