Just a Matter of Trust
The LA Times this morning treats us to a story on global warming, complete with the admonition that "the nation's preeminent scientific body" not only believes that the phenomenon is real, but that it is influenced by humans.
One can't help but wonder how many of the people who have refused to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq insist on believing in global warming. How many of those who are convinced that the Bush administration "pressured" analysts to come to certain results to justify the invasion of Iraq -- and have pushed investigations of that matter -- are willing seriously to investigate credible claims that scientists who dissent from the global warming credo are being professionally punished for it? How many of the people who called for a full national debate on Iraq now have no interest in there being a national debate, with both sides being able to present evidence, about global warming?
I'm a global warming agnostic -- which means I'd like to weigh the evidence on both sides. We never seem to hear it.
Rather, all the people who were quite willing for a jack-booted thug to sit on piles of WMD absent 100% dispositive evidence that the WMD were there are now very willing to accept a lot of projections, estimates and approximations, and use them as a basis for passing restrictive laws that could result both in harm to the American economy and significant restrictions on limit Americans' personal freedoms.
I guess it's all a matter of where one places one's faith. Many of the same people who would scorn the assessment of the "nation's preeminent body" when it comes to Iraq or Iran are willing to tout the findings of the "the nation's preeminent scientific body" when it comes to the environment. Do you trust the people who believe in American might, or those who want to constrain it?
Update: According to the piece in the New York Times, caveats to the study were dropped. One other thing worth noting: In the ledes of the both NY Times and the LA Times stories, it refers to the outfit issuing the report as the "nation's pre-eminent scientific body." Coincidence? Or cribbing from a particularly compelling press release?
One can't help but wonder how many of the people who have refused to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq insist on believing in global warming. How many of those who are convinced that the Bush administration "pressured" analysts to come to certain results to justify the invasion of Iraq -- and have pushed investigations of that matter -- are willing seriously to investigate credible claims that scientists who dissent from the global warming credo are being professionally punished for it? How many of the people who called for a full national debate on Iraq now have no interest in there being a national debate, with both sides being able to present evidence, about global warming?
I'm a global warming agnostic -- which means I'd like to weigh the evidence on both sides. We never seem to hear it.
Rather, all the people who were quite willing for a jack-booted thug to sit on piles of WMD absent 100% dispositive evidence that the WMD were there are now very willing to accept a lot of projections, estimates and approximations, and use them as a basis for passing restrictive laws that could result both in harm to the American economy and significant restrictions on limit Americans' personal freedoms.
I guess it's all a matter of where one places one's faith. Many of the same people who would scorn the assessment of the "nation's preeminent body" when it comes to Iraq or Iran are willing to tout the findings of the "the nation's preeminent scientific body" when it comes to the environment. Do you trust the people who believe in American might, or those who want to constrain it?
Update: According to the piece in the New York Times, caveats to the study were dropped. One other thing worth noting: In the ledes of the both NY Times and the LA Times stories, it refers to the outfit issuing the report as the "nation's pre-eminent scientific body." Coincidence? Or cribbing from a particularly compelling press release?
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:39 AM
6 Comments:
Are you sure, Ditto, these "fully peer reviewed articles" say what you claim or think they say?
You MIGHT be right. I'll grant that much. But considering what has come of some of your recent claims ...
... I'm just sayin' ...
Hey, I was just sayin' ...
Oh please Carol you are an intelligent woman, science is not a political debate.
I have to chuckle a little bit. Are you a working scientist, ditto?
More embarrassment for you Carol. One day you'll regret writing all this junk.
Have you not seen any of the fierce debates between camp A supporting one theory and camp B supporting another?
If I may adopt the stance of a Koster...
Clearly BushCo has a line on alternative energy sources and he's saving it for Haliburton!
(/Koster)
If there were a way to tell the Saudi royal family to stick their oil tankers where the sun don't shine, I'd be all for it. Sadly there's really nothing readily available in 2006 that's going to replace oil. As far as I'm concerned that's a far better reason for seeking alternative energy sources.
As to Global Climate Change, the climate of the world has changed markedly over the past 5 billion-odd years, ranging from the Carboniferous Age through the Ice Ages of the Pleistocene to our present inter-glacial period. The place I lived in prior to DC once sat under an inland sea judging by all the seashell fossils we'd find.
Regardless of what humans do, it will continue to change. (Unless we figure out a way to stop, say, the sunspot cycle. I doubt it will happen ever, let alone in our lifetimes...)
Post a Comment
<< Home