If I was skeptical of climate science ...
Monday/07 December 2009
Time Magazine has a summary of the stolen email
controversy. It's worth reading. What did the
scientists mean when they wrote what they wrote? That is the
question. There is divergence between the answer to that question
and the assertions of many climate science skeptics and the beliefs
of those who have fallen prey to manufactured
dissent initiatives.
If I was skeptical of climate science would I be happy about the email stolen from the University of East Anglia? If I obstructed initiatives to limit carbon dioxide emissions, how certain would I want to be that I am right? I can answer that question easily. I'd want to be absolutely certain that I knew that I was correct. Because the stakes are so high in this controversy, there's no room for error. Being wrong would mean I bet on a horse charging over a cliff.
If by chance I am mistaken, the lives of future generations are made hellish, starting with the lives our children here and now. I would not want to parade about smugly announcing that climate science is bogus only to find out that I have misjudged and opposed carbon reduction — ensuring a living hell for future generations.
I am clear that my impact upon generations that follow should not be based upon my whim, a political loyalty, an economic plan or a crap shoot based upon my ego. If I was skeptical of climate science I am certain I wouldn't want to be anything less than absolutely certain of my stance. Are you? Or do you just feel lucky?
At the recent Munk debate on climate change, George Monbiot asked, "How lucky do you feel?"
Time Magazine is not final arbiter of climate issues but it is a decent starting point for the truly curious and represents an approach that uses reason and evidence as opposed to hysterical political posturing. It's a starting point for those wishing to investigate with an open mind, that is, to prove or disprove the viewpoint and evidence offered by Time. It is not a voice from the fringes, from the left or the extreme right. It's not a hippie rag nor is it, I suspect, completely unfettered from the call of its advertisers. In short, it is ordinary mainstream media. Take a look and use it in your own thoughtful inquiries.
It's not too late to think.
If I was skeptical of climate science would I be happy about the email stolen from the University of East Anglia? If I obstructed initiatives to limit carbon dioxide emissions, how certain would I want to be that I am right? I can answer that question easily. I'd want to be absolutely certain that I knew that I was correct. Because the stakes are so high in this controversy, there's no room for error. Being wrong would mean I bet on a horse charging over a cliff.
If by chance I am mistaken, the lives of future generations are made hellish, starting with the lives our children here and now. I would not want to parade about smugly announcing that climate science is bogus only to find out that I have misjudged and opposed carbon reduction — ensuring a living hell for future generations.
I am clear that my impact upon generations that follow should not be based upon my whim, a political loyalty, an economic plan or a crap shoot based upon my ego. If I was skeptical of climate science I am certain I wouldn't want to be anything less than absolutely certain of my stance. Are you? Or do you just feel lucky?
At the recent Munk debate on climate change, George Monbiot asked, "How lucky do you feel?"
Time Magazine is not final arbiter of climate issues but it is a decent starting point for the truly curious and represents an approach that uses reason and evidence as opposed to hysterical political posturing. It's a starting point for those wishing to investigate with an open mind, that is, to prove or disprove the viewpoint and evidence offered by Time. It is not a voice from the fringes, from the left or the extreme right. It's not a hippie rag nor is it, I suspect, completely unfettered from the call of its advertisers. In short, it is ordinary mainstream media. Take a look and use it in your own thoughtful inquiries.
It's not too late to think.
