Society treats people who question man-made global warming pretty much as conspiracy theorists deserving of tinfoil hats. Any doubts about climate change are equivocated with utter insanity including but not limited to: eschewing science, hating nature and the environment, being a right-wing nutjob, extraordinary ignorence and intentionally ignoring basic scientific facts. The vast majority of Americans appear to be grossly ignorant of this topic entirely, but not because they question the edicts. Rather, the least informed on this matter are often those who wholly accept the popular myths.
Most of what we read and hear from popular media on global warming is presented as fact and ignores significant criticism from the scientific community. Those who just accept what they read in the local paper or see on the national news are likely to believe that if human behavior doesn't change drastically, we will soon kill our planet. And those who do research the topic for themselves have to put considerable effort into locating credible sources, as objective sources aren't easily found. An internet search of 'scientific dissent on global warming' generates lots of blogs and popular conservative sites, regardless of search engine. This allows global warming disciples to pretend that dissent is meritless because they can point to anectdotal examples like opinion pieces and simply deride them as ignorant.
More importantly, it makes it difficult for people to educate themselves on the issue and helps misinformation to flourish. People who accept global warming edicts from Al Gore and the UN like to claim that there is no scientific dissent on this issue, that the scientific community is in agreement with their pronouncements and has the data to back up these claims but that's grossly inaccurate. There is generally a scientific consensus on climate change but the anthropogenic effects are hotly contested. Popular opinion seems to be that we must drastically overhaul our way of life in order to prevent irreversible damage to the environment when in fact anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is questionable, at best. It's also important to note that science is not a consensus but rather a process of exploration and investigation to establish truth. It's simply not enough that they believe in it; They must be able to present sufficient supporting data sufficient to justify their position because that's what science requires. It's not a matter of opinion or personal belief.
There are theories and data that support AGW and then there are equally compelling theories and data that show the effects of AGW to be negligable. Computer models on the subject differ greatly and have long been suspect in accuracy. Solar activity plays a big part in earth's temperature and weather patterns. We can't ignore the fact that the planet has always displayed cyclical warming and cooling patterns, including drastic shifts in weather. There is a lot of documentation disputing AGW as a major concern yet the average person appears to be believe that our way of life is going to destroy life as we know it unless we institute drastic measures at exhorbitant costs to completely overhaul every aspect of life on this planet.
Professionals from all walks of life who fail to embrace the populist assumptions of AGW are dismissed as unqualified simply because they're not climate scientists but the sciences are not exclusive fields lacking connection to one another. We would not dismiss a physicist's opinion on an issue in a chemistry lab simply because it comes from a physicist and not a chemist. We wouldn't ignore a physician who comments on matters of biology, nor condemn an engineer for offering data relevant to a matter of botany. Yet the climate debate is closed to the entire scientific community outside of the world's climate scientists if and when these otherwise learned professionals offer a dissenting observation.
Criticisms from medical, veterinary, physics, engineering and science professionals are derided yet all layman are embraced by the AGW community so long as they accept the mantra without question. Look no further than Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who couldn't handle undergrad math and science classes at Harvard and never finished graduate school. Or Charless Monnett, the wildlife biologist and whale researcher who "determined" that AGW is killing bears. Or any liberal Hollywood celebrity. Or many media personalities who choose to eschew objectivity in their reporting.
All fields of science are complex and overlapping, taking cues and making discoveries based on interdisciplinary works yet climate science is shutting out all other disciplines while embracing layman, politicians and special interests -- many of whom stand poised to profit handsomely from it, including Al Gore. There is compelling evidence to suggest that the effects of AGW are being overstated and exploited -- and legitimate criticisms are being silenced -- for political and financial gain. We must stop passing out tinfoil hats instead perform our due diligence to educate ourselves on the facts of the issue instead of subscribing to the popular quasi-information being fed to us all.
Most of what we read and hear from popular media on global warming is presented as fact and ignores significant criticism from the scientific community. Those who just accept what they read in the local paper or see on the national news are likely to believe that if human behavior doesn't change drastically, we will soon kill our planet. And those who do research the topic for themselves have to put considerable effort into locating credible sources, as objective sources aren't easily found. An internet search of 'scientific dissent on global warming' generates lots of blogs and popular conservative sites, regardless of search engine. This allows global warming disciples to pretend that dissent is meritless because they can point to anectdotal examples like opinion pieces and simply deride them as ignorant.
More importantly, it makes it difficult for people to educate themselves on the issue and helps misinformation to flourish. People who accept global warming edicts from Al Gore and the UN like to claim that there is no scientific dissent on this issue, that the scientific community is in agreement with their pronouncements and has the data to back up these claims but that's grossly inaccurate. There is generally a scientific consensus on climate change but the anthropogenic effects are hotly contested. Popular opinion seems to be that we must drastically overhaul our way of life in order to prevent irreversible damage to the environment when in fact anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is questionable, at best. It's also important to note that science is not a consensus but rather a process of exploration and investigation to establish truth. It's simply not enough that they believe in it; They must be able to present sufficient supporting data sufficient to justify their position because that's what science requires. It's not a matter of opinion or personal belief.
There are theories and data that support AGW and then there are equally compelling theories and data that show the effects of AGW to be negligable. Computer models on the subject differ greatly and have long been suspect in accuracy. Solar activity plays a big part in earth's temperature and weather patterns. We can't ignore the fact that the planet has always displayed cyclical warming and cooling patterns, including drastic shifts in weather. There is a lot of documentation disputing AGW as a major concern yet the average person appears to be believe that our way of life is going to destroy life as we know it unless we institute drastic measures at exhorbitant costs to completely overhaul every aspect of life on this planet.
Professionals from all walks of life who fail to embrace the populist assumptions of AGW are dismissed as unqualified simply because they're not climate scientists but the sciences are not exclusive fields lacking connection to one another. We would not dismiss a physicist's opinion on an issue in a chemistry lab simply because it comes from a physicist and not a chemist. We wouldn't ignore a physician who comments on matters of biology, nor condemn an engineer for offering data relevant to a matter of botany. Yet the climate debate is closed to the entire scientific community outside of the world's climate scientists if and when these otherwise learned professionals offer a dissenting observation.
Criticisms from medical, veterinary, physics, engineering and science professionals are derided yet all layman are embraced by the AGW community so long as they accept the mantra without question. Look no further than Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who couldn't handle undergrad math and science classes at Harvard and never finished graduate school. Or Charless Monnett, the wildlife biologist and whale researcher who "determined" that AGW is killing bears. Or any liberal Hollywood celebrity. Or many media personalities who choose to eschew objectivity in their reporting.
All fields of science are complex and overlapping, taking cues and making discoveries based on interdisciplinary works yet climate science is shutting out all other disciplines while embracing layman, politicians and special interests -- many of whom stand poised to profit handsomely from it, including Al Gore. There is compelling evidence to suggest that the effects of AGW are being overstated and exploited -- and legitimate criticisms are being silenced -- for political and financial gain. We must stop passing out tinfoil hats instead perform our due diligence to educate ourselves on the facts of the issue instead of subscribing to the popular quasi-information being fed to us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment