The thing to remember about freedom is that it is not given, it is taken

As someone who considers himself a big fan of scientists, the scientific method, and the epistemology of science, I am little embarrassed how, seemingly most, scientists are conducting themselves in the area of environmentalism these days. I often wonder what my scientific hero, Carl Sagan, would have written about today’s fervor over global warming and the impacts that humans are having on the earth.

I know that Sagan was an early voice in calling attention to the hole developing in the ozone layer. In one of his books, (Demon Haunted World?) Sagan even went so far to say that authors Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin, of the seminal paper on discovering the Antarctic ozone depletion, should have statues erected in their honor. Or perhaps he just said their names should be recognized by every grade school student, I don’t remember. The point is, he was quick to leap to conclusions. And generally speaking, we want our scientists to be very slow leapers.

But Carl Sagan was an exceptionally reasonable man. Despite his petty snub by the National Academy of Sciences, Sagan always impressed me by how he was continually evolving in his beliefs, and how he was capable of overcoming the homogeneous mind-set of progressive Western academia. For example, for years he had been an opponent of laboratory animal testing. However, he later admitted, after he had been diagnosed with myelodysplasia and been forced to receive a bone marrow transplant, that without the benefit of animal testing he would have died (sooner).

After Sagan’s death on December 20th, 1996, I joined a Carl Sagan email list, and enjoyed corresponding with other Sagan fans. I left the list about 4 or 5 years later, after it was overrun by leftist apostles who viewed Sagan, ironically enough, as their environmental evangelist. Minus the moonbats, I miss those Sagan list discussions, as I miss reading Sagan himself.

I often wonder what his take would be on the global warming hysteria today. No other subject seems to elicit such myopia in the scientific community, or garners such a backlash towards opposing views, as global warming [See: Dr. Bjorn Lomborg's controversial “The Environmental Skeptic.”] Standing up to anything short of global annihilation is a guarantee of censure in the collegiate circuit, or perhaps denial of membership into the National Academy of Sciences.

Would Carl Sagan be the candle in the dark today, urging caution upon scientists before jumping to conclusions about the cause of global warming? Would he be a voice of temperance in the gale of panic? I would like to believe that he'd have thrown his hands up by the time the global-warming-induced ice age talk arose. Surely he would recognize that the scientific community has played judge, jury, and executioner to the SUV, regardless – nay, in spite of – any evidence before them. Their behavior in global warming specifically and environmentalism in general, has been anything but scientific. And I don’t think Carl Sagan would have approved, regardless of what the Nobel Laureates at the NAS bloviate.

But, any guesses on my part towards Sagan’s stance on today’s environmentalist movement are just that: guesses. I really don’t know what he’d say. But the lesson that I have learned since Carl Sagan’s departure is a sad one: the scientific community that I came to know and love is just as susceptible to the political whims and pressures as any other group, perhaps even moreso because of their shackles to government grants.

In the end, all I know for certain is that the earth’s climate will likely rise, fall, or stay the same. And, undoubtedly, SUVs will be to blame.

Previous: Environmentalists are Primitivists in Faux Sheep's Clothing