An earlier post by M. Simon about the slowdown of the solar conveyor has generated an extended and ongoing debate. I'm hesitant to call it a scientific debate, because this is not a science blog, and unverified commenters are not scientists. (Why that post outranks the NASA report at Google is unclear, but hey, I'm not complaining....)

Scientists and wannabe scientists are as welcome here as politicians and wannabe politicians!

I am not a scientist, and I am a late comer to the debate on anthropogenic global warming -- the political aspects of which are of far more interest to me than the scientific aspects. The existence of warming is a separate issue from whether man is responsible for warming, and whether man is responsible is a separate issue from whether man can do things to cool the planet. And whether man can do things to cool the planet is a separate issue from whether man should cool the planet. And whether man should cool the planet is a separate issue from how best to do that. (For example, why single out driving if meat-eating is the greater culprit?)

And all of these things are separate issues from whether the government constitutionally can -- or should -- place restrictions on human economic activity. I think history shows that when the government gets involved in these things, the situation gets worse.

Anyway, the following comment I left to an earlier post pretty much explains what I think:

Scientists can say whatever they want, and just as they are free to take scientific positions on various theories, so they are free to take political positions. These theories were of little interest to me until it became apparent that they were being applied in a political manner (to advance proposals that would harm the economy, and even invade my life and my home).

When science is used politically, skepticism is the inevitable result. But, just as I am skeptical about anthropogenic global warming and the dangers of second hand cigarette smoke, it really wouldn't matter whether I was. If the government seeks to restrict human individual and economic freedom, I'll simply oppose the restrictions.

Using scientific claims to restrict human freedom is not new. In San Francisco in the 1980s, scientists running the city's health department closed gay bathhouses because of AIDS. You don't have to be gay, or a bathhouse patron, or an AIDS skeptic to oppose that.

Similarly, scientists claim that their "statistics" show that owning a gun is dangerous, and these arguments are used to advance gun control. I don't consider such statistics to be legitimate constitutional arguments, and while I might ridicule them in this blog, my political position is unaffected.

(What? Do I have to spell everything out?)

Anyway, I'm sure many scientific arguments could be advanced against alcohol. It's bad for you! It can rot your liver, screw up your brain and a lot of other organs, dramatically shorten your life, and may very well cause unemployment and domestic violence.

The above are scientific arguments, but when they are used to advance prohibition, they become fair game politically.

I might enjoy having fun with science, but my position is political. The thing is, debates just aren't my shtick. I enjoy writing this blog, but just as I'm not interested in getting into political debates, I'm not interested in scientific debates.

However, I believe in free speech, and I allow anonymous open commenting. I let comments speak for themselves, but I don't consider them debate.

The problem for me is that occasionally I respond to a comment, as I did in the green witch post. I really should work harder not to do that, and I'm thinking seriously of banning myself as a commenter to ensure it doesn't happen again.

But that would be a form of censorship, so I don't want to do that. Better to just think of my comments as aberrations.

However, I'm having an internal debate right now over whether my admitted policy violations constitute hypocrisy. (And worse, whether calling attention to my regrettable policy violations might constitute shameless self-indulgent narcissism.)

Thinking it over carefully, I have tentatively decided to go easy on myself and declare that my comments are merely exceptions that prove my rule.