Finkelstein, free speech and the global warming debate

For Manne there is no capacity or right to question the 'science' supporting AGW because that 'science' has been achieved by a consensus amongst climate scientists. Only scientists who have been subject to peer review are entitled to be part of this consensus. The peer review system works like this: you are a scientist and you submit a paper on AGW which is reviewed by your peers. But if all your peers accept that AGW is real aren't they all going to reject any view which diverges from the consensus?

This seems to be the case with great acrimony attaching to any non-consensus view. Spencer and Braswell found this out when their 2011 paper showing climate sensitivity was much less than the computer models predicted provoked a resignation by the editor of the journal which published their paper. This act of martyrdom was favourably received by such AGW stalwarts as Peter Gleick who subsequently experienced his own act of professional immolation. The fact that Spencer and Braswell based their paper on observations was overlooked by most of the critics.

The point is if experts like Spencer and Braswell are shown the door by the consensus what chance do average citizens have in expressing their doubts. For Manne the answer is none. It does not matter to him that the peer review system has systemic corruption as shown by the Climate-gate emails. All that is evident to Manne is that if ordinary citizens disagree with the official view of AGW they must be irrational.

Manne's position is exactly the same as Finkelstein's. Both assume that ordinary citizens are prone to irrationality and need to be guided by superior folk. Finkelstein has conformed to this assumption of superiority by the censor as shown by his suggestions for who would appoint the NMC, senior academics [11.46] and who would be the chair and head of the NMC, a judge or lawyer [11.50].

The idea that citizens need to be controlled in this way is repugnant and fundamentally anti-democratic. Equality of exposure to ideas and transparency of information are the pillars of any free society. Equally importantly, Finkelstein's proposed scheme ignores the possibility of bias by those doing the controlling or censoring. Finkelstein arrogantly ignores the manifest examples of bias and corruption by those who are controlling the AGW 'debate'; why would a more general censorship regime over all issues be any different? Who is going to control the censor?

Finkelstein has emphasised that 'the search for truth' [section 2] should be the lynch-pin of freedom of expression. The debate about AGW demonstrates the continuum of truth in a democratic society: at one end there is the group or consensus truth and at the other, the individual truth. The mechanisms for establishing truth in a democracy are science, legal process and ultimately the democratic process.

The consensus truth relies on authority of a superior group which 'peer reviews' its members to justify its truth while the individual truth must be sustained with ability to persuade. Each of the mechanisms for establishing truth in a democracy are based on individual truth: in science you can't elect truth or declare it by majority; at law all litigation is between individuals, even class actions involve individuals with a common complaint and the democratic process is an individual rights based process. In setting up the strawmen of marketplace truth [2.20] and the Foucauldian notion that there not be any truth [2.26] Finkelstein ignores the fact that the individual rights based process is the fundamental democratic method of establishing truth or the lack of it.

Finkelstein's review, therefore, should be scrutinised from this vantage point: to the extent it compromises the individual rights based mechanisms of a democracy it should be rejected because by doing so all Finkelstein is promulgating is censorship.