By:  Eric Seymour

The world of physics has been shaken up this week by the news of an experiment at CERN which appears to show neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light. In reading the article, I was struck by the following paragraph:

“We’d be thrilled if it’s right because we love something that shakes the foundation of what we believe,” said Columbia University physicist Brian Greene. “That’s what we live for.”

This is how science is supposed to work. New results should be welcomed while at the same time fervently scrutinized to uncover any errors and see if the results can be repeated.

Contrast this to the nature of the debate surrounding climate change. Relativity is one of the foundational theories of modern science, and yet scientists who occasionally uncover evidence that appears to contradict that theory aren’t derided as “relativity-deniers.”

Although I’m of the opinion that the carbon emissions of human civilization will likely impact the climate to some degree, I think there’s no denying that the field of climate research is deeply dysfunctional. While those who are politically opposed to the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) certainly bear some of the responsibility for poisoning the well, the theory’s proponents are the overwhelming majority in the field and have the power to change the tone of the debate. As physicists do, they ought to share their data openly with anyone who wishes to challenge their theory. This sort of open-armed adversarial relationship is how errors are ferreted out and theories are either strengthened or replaced with better ones.