http://bit.ly/bCKVtm - - - The current climate-change furor has become the poster child for what happens when there’s a communications gap between scientists and the public. The vast majority of scientists see compelling evidence that the world’s climate is about to change significantly, and that the change is largely driven by human activity. Yet polls show public opinion becoming more skeptical about climate change. - - -
This is bullshit on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. First of all, Hollywood has been on the bandwagon for AGW for a long time. Most of Hollywood these days is far left leaning, sending emissaries to such enlightened democrats as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Secondly, the issue is not so much a communication gap as an overload of hysterical nonsense, all claiming doom is immanent and the only solution is, naturally, political (i.e., hand over your wallet, please). Thirdly, the trust the public once had for scientists has been eroded by irrefutable evidence that the most trusted scientists involved in the IPCC reports were in it for the glory and didn't mind applying the axe of Procrustes to data they couldn't explain or hardball politics to "peers" who didn't review the way they wanted them to. In other words: They themselves broke faith with the scientific process. Fourth: All these assertions about what the "vast majority of scientists" allegedly believe has occurred in a politically charged atmosphere where all the funding and approval has been on the side of the alarmists, whose political program has never been closer to being enacted. They are really just whining that revelations of their human fallibility (and even perfidy) are happening at a most inconvenient moment. This is the real "inconvenient truth" of the whole matter. Let's even say GW is happening. Let's say we know it's "man made" and let's even pretend CO2 is the primary driver. None of this is by itself proof that really what we need to do right now is enact a regime of "carbon credits" that will cause utility bills to skyrocket and give unaccountable agencies untold power to regulate commerce and human activity generally. They can't close the deal because their real motives have been exposed, and the "science" behind their arguments is shown to be in sufficient doubt to cast a long shadow of suspicion about the "remedy" they propose. Why scientists ought to be treated like high priests when they have proven themselves to be motivated by more than "mere truth" is a question I'd like answered even BEFORE the question of how the proposed carbon credit regime is expected to solve the alleged problem. - Publius -- "It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful and vigilant performance of the trust." [Federalist Papers #59] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
