Posted on 04/02/2007 7:15:02 AM PDT by Clive
There is little disagreement in the media that Al Gore is greatly responsible for bringing the subject of man-made global warming into the public glare. Gore has been on a roll since the Academy Awards gave his film, An Inconvenient Truth, the prize for the best documentary of the year, and it will not be a surprise if the Norwegian Nobel committee awards him the peace prize for his efforts in the push to end man-made global warming.
Science and politics have co-existed in an uneasy relationship for a very long time. The reason is simple. In science "truth" is meant to be independent of human preferences and its discovery occurs through the scientific method of conjectures and refutations.
In politics "truth" is often a claim made on the basis of some authority -- church, charismatic leader, majority opinion in a democracy -- and selective evidence.
Politicians since Archimedes in ancient Greece have sought advice of scientists in the making of public policy. Yet there is a difference between open and closed societies in how scientific advice is sought and given, and in protecting the delicate balance between science and society.
The Gore phenomenon in an open society has placed science and politics at odds in a manner that is somewhat new. We are observing how celebrity status of a politician (or a former politician) in the media may bend the rules of science to serve a particular public policy.
Gore insists the causal connection between human activity and global warming is proven by consensus, and there are many scientists who agree.
But there is another body of scientific opinion that questions such consensus, and it views proposals for cutting back carbon emission as too heavy-handed and will do more damage to the economy of countries like Canada than the expected good.
I recall a neat story about Albert Einstein when asked how he felt that some 200 German scientists assembled by the Nazi regime had declared his science was bad. Einstein replied that all it took was one scientist to prove him wrong.
Gore and his supporters can draw upon science for their politics, reconcile contradictions between what they do and what they profess, and may even turn a profit out of the public policy they promote without breaking any laws.
Gore is the founding chairman of Generation Investment, a company established in 2004. It provides business with assessments of "risks and opportunities presented by climate change" for long term profitability, said David Blood, Gore's partner and former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.
Science is expected to be value-free and politically neutral. But scientists are human and not entirely immune to politics, especially when science is dependent on public-funding.
The insistence by Gore that his moral crusade is scientifically unimpeachable is confusing to that segment of the public who genuinely want to understand what to make of the unsettled debate among scientists about climate change and global warming. To resort to smear by parties on either side of the debate only deepens the suspicion of political considerations driving science.
We know from recent past experiences, however, that long-term predictions on issues where human agency and nature intersect -- such as population or renewable resources -- turned out differently.
This record of science being fallible might be a small consolation. Yet it is a helpful reminder. Scientists, when true to their vocation, will ask of the public not to abandon skepticism as a "truth" seeking tool -- unlike politicians in general being insistent on consensus when "truth" is uncertain.
And it may affect the aminalf which fwim in the fea.
Funny how global warming is a "moral issue" and stems cells are not.
I am soooooooooo not a happy camper. White stuff falling outside the window. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!! It really is April, isn't it?
-the globe has been warming for 10,000 years through no fault of man
-regardless, we will pay a tax to government to protect us from it.
Two fresh inches of snow at my place - GD winter!
It's April, fer Crissakes!!!
"Next winter in Mexico" - that's my new motto.
Take me with you. This is ridiculous! Sigh!
"Gore has been on a roll since the Academy Awards"
....wow,
I didn't know they MADE them eight feet across....!!!!
I don't think my bride would go along with that idea!
Posting from Winter Wonderland in God's Own Kootenays.
> He never did explain how the core sample prove his finding
My understanding is that you can take an ice core and examine it to determine where the layers of plant pollen are.
Then by using the plant pollen as an indication of spring weather when the flowers are germinating, the pollen is carried in the air flows, you can measure up or down in years.
That is how they can say that a volcano erupted so many years ago and be accurate ....... they see the volcanic ash in the ice core and by determining the various metalic traces the scientists have an idea what particular volcano popped its top.
There's a new tag line here. Unfortunately, it's too long:
"It doesn't take a consensus of scientists to prove anthropogenic global warming using the scientific method. It takes only one. So far, none has.
I'm planning on black bean burritos for dinner!
Of course there is.. the earth has been warming for 10,000 years..
The great lakes would be frozen solid if not..
It's our fault all right. Not only are we at fault we are so powerful it began to warm up just because it was inevitable seeing how at fault we were going to be.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Just across the border--NW Washington, top corner (almost).
Sigh! Tell the little lady that I'm really, really nice. Snicker!
Have you been swimming in Lake Superior lately? It's still frozen, just in liquid form.
>Are we a major factor in global warming. I don't think we're even close.
Can more be done around the world not to pollute and stink up the planet? I believe so.<
One good sized forest fire puts more soot and trash in the air than all the cars in your entire state.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
suburbans on Jupiter?
From 1500 to 1850 the average temp on the earth dropped 10 degrees. From 1890 to 1990 the average temp was up 1 degree.
IF the 1 degree rise in temps was because of man and too much industrialization, THEN the preceding 10 degree drop in temps was do to not enough men and not enough industrialization!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.