A friend with conservative inclinations forwarded a story concerning Patrick Moore, identified in the brief as a co-founder of the environmental group Greenpeace, who spoke out against man-made global warming before the US Senate. The Congressional findings were published February 25, 2014. Mr. Moore died in 2012, making cross-examination of this known radical, ultra-right winger a mute point. Moore once famously said, “I may be accused of being a dinosaur, but I would remind you that dinosaurs ruled the Earth for a very long time.” Perhaps Fox News may next question the extinction of dinosaurs, since they failed to mention the passing of Mr. Moore.
The ploy of conservative Fox News could not be more transparent. Quoting from a dead curmudgeon attempts to sway opinion based on progressive association about subjects of which Moore had no particular expertise, is a non sequitur. Others opposed to notions of global warming, should not confuse science with politics, for this is a game played by purely anecdotal means, without evidential support.
When social advocates use science as an aid in shaping human behavior, the procedure becomes muddy from all the back-dealing and underhandedness required to pass political legislation. Such action does not take away from the work of science, nor can opinion alter the facts. Politics is the ugly step-sister made up to be the prom queen, doing all the heavy lifting to influence human judgment.
Examine the historical process which campaigned successfully to stigmatize tobacco. Cigarette companies offered similar counter-arguments, lack of proof, large costs to the economy, etc. in a fight against what today is commonly acknowledged to be unhealthy behavior, and that which we as a society discourage through enforced sanctions and limited product accessibility.
Science made the unquestionable connection between tobacco and disease and life expectancy, but the social/political arena had the tough job of selling the cure to the public at large. This is not a black or white issue. Personal freedom becomes restricted through prohibitive legislation. Is this justified by a nod to the common good? Opinions vary. But the science is correct. How this evidence is applied; there is the rub.
Knocking science in the twenty-first century is a losing battle. Superstition or denial, both are mind-killers, unworthy of discussion. Let us argue application instead, cost vs gain for the individual and society in general.
Tags: global warming, public opinion, scientific methodology
You are being too kind. At some point, humanity must consign to aberration “science” no longer worthy of attention or intellectual efforts other than to teach history. There is no longer a “theory” but a law of evolution; the sun does NOT revolve around the earth; when the human race spews two million pounds per second of pollutants into the only air blanket around the planet, any kid with a bucket of dirty water can conclude that saturation is not a theory. Allowing “Rights” of blabbering to the point of damage is precisely the suicidal bent festering in human “virtues”.