This is meant to be a short follow-up on my previous post on Global Warming and declining skepticism on an as-yet uncertain issue. I got a comment for it:” enough good evidence has piled up to support it”. Really?Where?In any case,what constitutes evidence on an issue like this?
These are some of the questions I’d like answered.The comment goes on to say that we should “drive more efficient cars, insulate our houses, plant trees”. As a zealous environmentalist, I agree we should plant more trees. We should insulate our houses to bring down heating bills, and we should drive efficient cars to bring down fuel bills. Why do you need an unproved threat to prick you into action?
And I’m really not alone on this one, fellas. I’ve got another article (click here) that supports it. The gist of it is:When it comes to climate change, “sceptic” is a dirty word. Scientists who dissent from the strict orthodoxy on man-made global warming have been shouted down, labelled dupes of the US oil industry, even branded “climate change deniers” — a label with obvious historical connotations. Instead of taking up the sceptics’ case, the accepted response of our illiberal age is to yell: “You can’t say that!”But is not skepticism crucial to scientific inquiry?We need to separate the science from the politics. Let the experts thrash out the evidence. But let them do so free from the pressures of a political climate in which human intervention is always seen as the problem rather than the solution, precaution is always privileged over risk, and the worst possible outcome is always assumed to be the best bet.These are just excerpts, but i think you get the point. I don’t ever again want to make a blog as long as the first one!