Well Reasoned and Reasonable
I loved this discussion of science, scientists, method and meaning in the wake of the Climate Change scandal. While it comes from a conservative source, I find much to agree with in the reasoning around the question of climate change--and being a person of the very, very long view--as I commented to a friend the other day, my skepticism comes from knowing that throughout Earth History we have beeen as often without ice caps as with them.
One of the things we struggle with as rational beings is the question of when change is natural and when it is induced and when it is appropriate to take action against the change. For a long time, we thought it a good idea not to let forest fires burn and to do all we could to prevent them, until we discovered that a certain level of burning, and undergrowth clearing, spot burning could actually increase the health of ecosytems.
Yes, we perturb all Earth systems. And all Earth systems are perturbed by elements that have nothing to do with human activity. We are right to note changes and to examine them carefully and to try to determine what, if anything, should be done contra the new conditions.
Do I think it is a good idea to continue to wastefully dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere whether or not they cause global warming? No. Do I think it is a good idea to make reasonable and measured efforts to reduce the pollutants entering land, air, and water? Yes. But then, what rational person does not? Where reasonable people differ, reasonably, is in answering the question of what measures constitute sufficient redress to real or potential problems.
Science can't really answer any of these questions for us. They can present the evidence suggest the seriousness of a problem, and offer potential solutions. However, science can do none of this if scientists are not interested in the truth, if they have been blinded by agenda, whether consciously or not.
Anyway, enough of my screed, enjoy the article cited above. It has much to say and says it well.
(Again courtesy of Books INQ)
One of the things we struggle with as rational beings is the question of when change is natural and when it is induced and when it is appropriate to take action against the change. For a long time, we thought it a good idea not to let forest fires burn and to do all we could to prevent them, until we discovered that a certain level of burning, and undergrowth clearing, spot burning could actually increase the health of ecosytems.
Yes, we perturb all Earth systems. And all Earth systems are perturbed by elements that have nothing to do with human activity. We are right to note changes and to examine them carefully and to try to determine what, if anything, should be done contra the new conditions.
Do I think it is a good idea to continue to wastefully dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere whether or not they cause global warming? No. Do I think it is a good idea to make reasonable and measured efforts to reduce the pollutants entering land, air, and water? Yes. But then, what rational person does not? Where reasonable people differ, reasonably, is in answering the question of what measures constitute sufficient redress to real or potential problems.
Science can't really answer any of these questions for us. They can present the evidence suggest the seriousness of a problem, and offer potential solutions. However, science can do none of this if scientists are not interested in the truth, if they have been blinded by agenda, whether consciously or not.
Anyway, enough of my screed, enjoy the article cited above. It has much to say and says it well.
(Again courtesy of Books INQ)
Comments
Post a Comment