CDC Getting (Climate Change) Religion

The National Environmental Health Conference just ended in Atlanta. I had the chance to attend a few sessions and heard Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) address the conference of some 1500. I heard an awful lot of predictable Democratic Party gloating (re: the last elections) and much worse, given that it's coming from the CDC, a troubling lack of critical thinking when it comes to global climate change.

It was amazing and worrisome to see such an educated, smart group of people sit there passively absorbing projections of looming catastrophe with little more than a nod of the head. There's a terrible pressure to conform to the current thinking and a serious intolerance of any sort of dissent.

In my case, my "dissent" is not an argument against the conclusions. I'm arguing against the means by which they are being reached.

I have seen first-hand the evidence used to demonstrate climate change drastically misrepresented, while contrary evidence is either dismissed out of hand or scoffed at as "biased"--by many of the same public health professionals who, truth be told, have an unacknowledged stake in fomenting an anti-global-climate-change "industry" of grants and government programs. They also have their professional reputations at stake. Not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but let's be critical-minded here: if they don't have a vested interest in creating (and perpetuating) concern about global climate change, who does?

While a case can be made that CDC and the rest of the US government must be prepared for the worst-case regarding global warming, we have to be careful. Millions and millions of tax dollars are going to be spent in preparing for the worst-possible scenario. I'm not an expert on the science, and most scientists, according to what I've seen, agree that warming is happening. But evidence exists that the worst-possible scenario is less than likely.

Preparedness is certainly wise; misdirecting millions of dollars in pursuit of what MAY be hobby-horse hysterics, however, is not. Let's make sure we get it right. To do that, these scientists must honestly consider evidence that doesn't suit their pre-drawn conclusions. To do otherwise is to ignore scientific method.

When I bring this up, I'm told either that "well, the Director believes it and that's good enough for me," or they demand the counter evidence, as if I'm arguing that climate change isn't happening. This is a transparent bit of changing the argument, and it's intellectually dishonest.

Is it too much to ask scientists to stick to scientific method?