Scientific Integrity
This was a rather nice respite from the name-calling (denialists and whatever it is we so-called denialists--personally prefer the term skeptics--call the other side. [I'm sure we have a name, fortunately, I haven't bothered to seek it out] ). There are climate researchers who profoundly believe that anthropogenic climate change has occurred and is occurring--scientist who have conducted their research with forthrightness and integrity and who should be listened to as they make their case. Unfortunately, their case has been damaged--perhaps beyond reconstruction by those involved in this scandalous affair.
I have said before and repeat--I find the question moot. I would be highly surprised if temperatures were not increasing--human intervention or not.
I find the question a distraction from a central issue that needs more serious and thoughtful discussion--if we can control emissions without a catastrophic cost to the economy, even if such controls must be phased in over time, should we not attempt to do so? Isn't that really a better way to conduct ourselves for preserving resources and opportunities for the future? I am annoyed by the constant distraction of the utilitarian and radical preservationist arguments implicit in the global climate change debate. The real question is, do we conduct ourselves like infants and spread our waste all over the walls of the world, or do we conduct ourselves like toddlers who have learned their way about the world a little better?
Global climate change is merely an iron fist way of getting to the same goal--a way that leads to division rather than agreement. By now environmentalists must have realized that the real way to effect their goals is to achieve a sense of buy-in and responsibility from a majority. The Global Climate Change question is an unfortunate use of a kind of scientific totalitarianism. Ugly, however you look at it.
I have said before and repeat--I find the question moot. I would be highly surprised if temperatures were not increasing--human intervention or not.
I find the question a distraction from a central issue that needs more serious and thoughtful discussion--if we can control emissions without a catastrophic cost to the economy, even if such controls must be phased in over time, should we not attempt to do so? Isn't that really a better way to conduct ourselves for preserving resources and opportunities for the future? I am annoyed by the constant distraction of the utilitarian and radical preservationist arguments implicit in the global climate change debate. The real question is, do we conduct ourselves like infants and spread our waste all over the walls of the world, or do we conduct ourselves like toddlers who have learned their way about the world a little better?
Global climate change is merely an iron fist way of getting to the same goal--a way that leads to division rather than agreement. By now environmentalists must have realized that the real way to effect their goals is to achieve a sense of buy-in and responsibility from a majority. The Global Climate Change question is an unfortunate use of a kind of scientific totalitarianism. Ugly, however you look at it.
Comments
Post a Comment