Aggie, thanks for your thoughts.
"Bottom line: Any time intimidation is used in any form in the context of a scientific discussion, then the pure argument has been put at risk. When the main spokesmen of the GW cause present their cases with an air of condescension, as if this has "already been decided" and accuse all non-believers of scientific apostasy, then the game has been revealed. Such incredible arrogance has no place in a scientific proof."
I suggest that "incredible arrogance", intimidation, rudeness and the inability to conduct a calm, reasoned debate on merits of any proposition has become a hallmark of our times.
My point was that in a democracy neither advocates nor opponents of an idea should be denied the opportunity to politicize their belief. The objection: nothing can be achieved without political involvement. It is up to voters to decide what should (or should not) be done.
Finally, your point about the quality of science attracting irrational support applies equally to both sides of the GW debate. It's an interesting point, but not relevant to the question of political support for future action.
Again, it's up to voters to assess the quality of science, consequent information, and the rationale behind different courses of action. However, given the current polarized environment, there's evidence to suggest that the days when a democratic decision will be respected and supported by all are long, long gone.
More's the pity.
Regards,
Jim |
