Amazing how even the most scientifically-minded become advocates of causes whose scientific basis still holds many open questions. There are systemic reasons for this, and they are not new, and I am very far from the first to point this out. I'm reading an anthology of editorials from Analog
) Science Fiction magazine, written in the forties, fifties, and sixties, by John W. Campbell. He has much to say about the institutional need to quash alternatives--in medicine, very notably, but also in all sciences.
The referenced article below points out that there is a lot of emotion behind climate issues today--but that the implications of the questionable conclusions hold regardless. This is from the American Society for Engineering Educators.
Canadian editorial criticizes climate "hysterics."
In a signed editorial for Canada's Daily Observer (3/20), columnist Lorrie Goldstein wrote that "[g]lobal warming is the gift that keeps on giving to climate hysterics." Goldstein adds that supporters of global warming "will never be called to account for their simple-minded campaign to demonize fossil fuels" because "everyone alive today will be dead long before we know how much of the scientific 'consensus' on global warming is correct." She pointed out that "[t]here are huge unknowns, competing theories and debates within the scientific community about what will happen, where, when and how severe." Global "climate is always changing and was changing long before we arrived," she wrote.
Goldstein agrees with U.S. Foreign Service officers Teresa Chin Jones and David T. Jones, who wrote a 2007 article titled The Zen of Global Warming. She concluded that they argued "for a pragmatic approach -- energy conservation and industrial innovation to develop alternative energy sources, based on the precautionary principle that, regardless of global warming theory, we know the Earth's population is increasing and that non-renewable energy sources" are exactly "that -- non-renewable."
1 comment(s) so far...
By Ben Eadie on
Re: Global warming? Maybe. But we should still work on alternatives to fossil fuels.
I have lectured on this and here are my thoughts. Don't demonize fossil fuels, learn to use them efficiently! I have helped design a bike that broke 2 world records in distance travelled in 24 hours under human power alone. At 150 watts we could sustain close to 45km/hour! Now if you put a engine in this bike it would be capable of thousands of miles per gallon.
We need to learn to be much less wasteful.