The earth is the center of the universe. (hubris)
The earth is flat. (lack of knowledge)
Humans can not cause global warming. (lack of information/lack of knowledge/hubris)
These are the rules to live by when, despite evidence to the contrary, the antiquated views rule.
If someone were being treated for a serious illness, and spoke to several specialists, and that person received a resounding echo of the treatment necessary, it would be obvious to follow that advice. Even though that person may deny the sickness and fear the consequences, the treatment is still necessary.
When contemplating the solution to global warming, perhaps a similar approach should be excersiced. Resoundingly, the experts agree: manmade emissions of CO2 are resulting in global warming, the solution is to reduce the rate of emission. There will be consequences, an uncomfortable period of transition, and recovery. In the end everyone will be better off.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As I'm probably a large reason for this post, I thought I better say something.
It seems to me that there are plenty of people that believe man-made global warming is, to put it mildly, bunk.
The constant drumbeat we hear from the media (who I believe to be in bed with global warming activists) drown out the critics and moralize against those who are so brazen as to contradict what they believe to be conventional wisdom.
I don't pretend to know the science for or against man-made global warming very well. I have a mistrust of many scientists in general because I believe the field has, like many areas of study, become politicized and warrants a great deal of skepticism.
The excerpt from the inside flap of this book summarizes my views on man-made global warming well.
Now of course you're probably going to tell me all over again that I'm irrationally denying the obvious, and that I'm guilty of hubris.
John,
It is not you, but many people I have talked to recently. Your recent post is a primer for this, but it is people that I speak to who are educated only by popular media and not from a review of the actual scientific basis.
The fact is, that I was educated on these topics well before they were part of mainstream dialogue (1998-2000). I believe that it has only been politicized recently for a conservative agenda. The science is solid and it has been so for years.
Look at countries across the world and scientists throughout the world. If the science is weak, this is quite the conspiracy!
The scientific method is quite rigorous and falsified science is borne out quickly. Recall the recent South Korean genetic scientist that falsified data and was destroyed professionally last year. Ignoring the science is also ignoring the scientific method.
I think, that if presented with the rigor of the science and the depth to which it has been research, people would be convinced. The uncomfortable truth is that people do not have the patience for such an in-depth analysis. They prefer to argue arm-chair quarterback style with a paucity of information.
I think that when people believe they can do no harm, that is hubris. I do not accuse you of that, but I do think that for the dialogue to be effective, a deeper look at the science and the scientific method is warranted.
I would love to look back on this discussion in 30 years, nursing a cold beer on the shores of a Minnesota lake in February. Maybe we'll be ice fishing, or maybe ice will already be off of the lakes.
Post a Comment