BC, this statement (which I assume is yours) is somewhat troubling:
'"Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.'
---
I'm the first to agree that the debate on warming is far from settled. The hypothesis will be proven true, not true, or somewhere in between.
There are many definitions of "true"; for instance, criminal law requires "beyond a reasonable doubt", while civil law is satisfied by the "balance of probabilities". It was a long time before science accepted the truth of Einsteinian physics, as opposed to Newtonian. Science was slow to accept the idea of plate tectonics; the idea was ridiculed by many, scientists and academics alike.
Truth is just as much a matter of acceptance, as objective reality. It may be that some truths are unknowable. If truth were static, we'd still believe the earth was flat, and that the universe revolved around it.
The problem lies in the extent of possible damage: if the warming hypothesis is true, there is an unquantified probability of global changes that will prejudice life as we know it.
The consequences of prevention will cause no damage to the planet; the consequences of inaction may result in irreversible change and catastrophic destruction.
---
There is apprehension of a danger. It's a probability, not a certainty. By which standard will we judge it? Scientific truth? That changes. "Beyond a reasonable doubt"? By the time we know that, it may be too late. "Balance of probabilities"? Opponents of the hypothesis won't even accept that.
They want absolute, incontrovertible "scientific" proof. 100%. Nothing less.
---
Now we come to your statement: '"Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.'
Whether or not the hypothesis is true, the apprehension is real. If mankind is to take preventive action it cannot be done without political action.
Of course advocates are attempting to create consensus. Without political action, no change can be effected. In view of the potential danger it would be irresponsible not to inform, to persuade, to seek action by democratic majority.
---
Nobody is questioning your right to equal time, an opposing view, and the right to motivate others in opposition.
To claim that advocates of the warming hypothesis are working toward "political" ends is to state the obvious. It's use of pejorative terminology, in an attempt to discredit the opposition with an illogical argument.
Would you have the matter ignored? Not debated? Or is "your side" the only side, while everyone else is playing "dirty pool"?
In the end, this matter will be decided by consensus, and that means politics and democracy - which, by your tortured logic, is wrong.
I disagree.
Jim |
