Well, I read last night that the Bush administration has spent the last 6 years pressuring scientists to down play global warming by not allowing some scientists to give media interviews on their research. . .
Read: Lawmakers hear of interference in global warming science.
. . . Playing down research and rewriting key phrases such as “global warming.” There is a general feeling among some republicans that science has not proven that global warming is linked to human activity and increasing greenhouse gasses and, as Bush apparently believes, it is just too expensive to put a cap on greenhouse admissions. And if you remember, in his address to the Union last week, Bush did not use the phrase “global warming” but he said “climate change.” This is significant because “climate change” sounds far more like a natural, although worrisome, than “global warming,” which has been linked to human’s doing. “Climate Change,” rather, sounds like a phenomenon that is out of our hands. It is nature’s doing and nature will do what nature will do.
These two phrases do not represent the same thing but they are being used rhetorically to confuse the issue. This is vital. Why even good old Wikipedia has two separate entries, not one, detailing what is “Global Warming” and what is “Climate Change.” This is politics. If we equate “global warming” with natural “climate change,” we can keep on doing what we have been doing to the earth. The phenomenon could just be natural and we could just be experiencing a normal “warming” trend which, in the end, would amount to nothing. So let’s not get hot under the collar shall we???????
So, there is the question of politics in science. It was suggested by Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist from the University of Colorado, that science and politics are simply mixed, and that all sides of the ideographic spectrum “cherry pick” the issue: democrats make a bigger deal out of global warming and Republicans play it down because, I am assuming, of lobbying interests of big corporations that want to continue shooting greenhouse gasses and other pollutants into the air. Certainly Dr. Pielke is right, that science sponsored by the government or a certain company will often reflect that company’s or government’s ideology—we have to remember who is singing those paychecks and handing out those research grants. This is not to say that all science is tainted, it is a complicated issue. But as much as we would like to profess the pureness of science—science, just like everything else, can be skewed to fit the circumstances. “Facts” are not simply “facts.” This is why Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia said that “I am no climate-change denier, [but] the issue of politicizing science has itself become politicized.”
Pleazzee—oh god the rhetoric! First, notice that Rep. Davis also, like Bush, used the phrase “climate change” and not “global warming.” It is easy not to be a “climate-change denier,” because climates do change—the questions are: How fast and why? Second, he changed the focus on issue as well, from the activity of repressing scientific research regarding Global Warming, to a political question regarding politicizing politics! I admit it was a graceful frame changing technique, done smoothly, but done specifically.
Is Global warming real? Yeah, it seems to be. Is it man-made? I dont know. I dont even care. If there is even a 1 in 4 chance that what we’re doing is screwing up the planet, then it seems reasonable to stop it. To say, oh, it’s not proven, then carry on as if nothing might be happening is irresponsible, perhaps criminally so.
If you were to tell George Bush that one of his (hypothetical) grandchildren might be getting molested by the gym teacher, would he shrug and say “there’s no proof”? No, he damn well would check out the story, and probably take immediate steps to see that no further molestation (if it is indeed occurring) goes on, even as he checks to see if it’s true.
Oh, forget all that crap, and concentrate on this: If there is a chance that we are making life unlivable on this planet (the only one we have so far), wouldnt it be wise to stop doing the things that may be destroying it?
Years from now, if further studies show we’re wrong, that we havent been warming the planet, then we can all slap ourselves on the forehead and have a good laugh with our grandchildren. Then we’ll all go out, get into our electric hum-vees (charged with solar power) and go have a picnic someplace in the clean air.
Can we all give Brother Dave an Amen! You are absolutely right good sir, no matter what we must do something about it. And if we were wrong, at least our priorities were right! Rebecca
Although I tend to agree with the sentiment, I also cringe from arguments (even though they are sometimes unavoidable) based on a “better safe than sorry” or “if it saves just one life… it’s worth it.”
Using the same argument and logic, if we put a national 10 mile per hour speed limit, we would save lots of lives. And you might say, “That’s crazy… we’re not going to do that!” I would then be inclined to say, “Do you not care about saving lives? What about the children?”
But that changes what the argument is truly about which is the cost/benefit difference between having that speed limit at 10mph or 65mph.
At what point do we stop pursuing might?
As for my own personal background/beliefs… I am not a global warming denier, but I do think it’s just part of the natural warming and cooling of the earth. The thought that our human contribution is significant enough, compared to what nature itself does, is a form of hubris. It reminds me of myself as a teenager thinking a pimple on my face was the end of my life, as opposed to my own anti-social tendencies and inability to be cool.