> From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> I just laugh. I doubt any of these people who doubts science would put up
>> with anyone doubting how THEY do THEIR job. And yet, scientists seem to be a
>> special target.
>
> When scientists inject themselves into politics, they become political
> targets.
Fair enough.
But if an engineer at an auto company held a press conference and said a
certain defect in the manufacturing process was killing people, you can bet
there would be changes, and that engineer would generally be praised. Yet, that
engineer took a political process.
When a scientist holds a press conference and says a certain defect in
civilization is killing people, it results in “disbelief.” Why?
I’ll tell you why. In the first case, the loop is tighter and undeniable. That
defect will kill someone TOMORROW, and the next day, and the next day. The auto
manufacturers have to say, “Sorry, we’ll fix this pronto!”
In the second case, the loop is longer. It will effect unborn grandchildren of
those who must make the changes. “We’ll deal with it tomorrow.'" Humans have
long shown a lack of focus on the Long Now.
Also, there are powerful, moneyed forces arrayed against the AGW scientists.
They are spending tons of money, because changing civilization will cost them
money. They have a lot of inertia in the status quo, and would rather defend it
than to be creative and figure out how to make money off this new situation.
Pity.
Finally, selfishness and innumeracy enters the picture. In many states, you
cannot drink raw milk, because a few people have become sick from it. Yet, we
continue to do an activity that KILLS some ~30,000 people each year -- one that
will arguably kill many, many more in unborn future generations. Imagine if,
say, hamburgers killed 30,000 people each year! Oh, the outrage! The speeches!
The Congressional hearings! Yet, many of us jump in our cars each day, not even
thinking that we may become one of those 30,000 that fateful morning.
One more thing, then I’ll shut up, as this has become a political conversation.
Bob Whitmore GETS IT. He spoke of a “preponderance of evidence.” The unnamed
deniers spoke of “belief.”
Science is not based on belief. A scientist may begin a hypothesis based on a
hunch, but until EVIDENCE is gathered, they generally don’t talk about belief.
Go look at that Tom The Dancing Bug cartoon I posted. He sums it up better than
I ever could:
“It makes sense that a man with absolutely no background in science would see
right through 150 years of analysis and experimentation. Some people would have
done even the most cursory inquiry, perhaps a Google search, before dismissing
an entire branch of Science."
:::: Jan Steinman, EcoReality Co-op ::::
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|