Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuds
On the first part, some clarification please. Do the scientists you know dispute that Earth is warming? If not, do they dispute that the direct cause for Earth warming is an increase in various greenhouse gasses? If not, do they dispute the primary source of the increase in greenhouse gasses being related to human activity? I assume these scientists have published some data to back their opinions, so would you mind sharing that data?
On the second matter, I agree with you to a point. No scientists as people are not saints, nor are they ego-less, nor are they apolitical, and yes they have a number of pressures put on them due to monetary concerns. But, science as a profession has limits as to how far one might stray from the ideal before an individual is criticized, ostracized, and/or condemned. How many scientists that you know would straight up lie about objective data? It would be a really bad idea, considering someone else can run the same experiment and show it to be false, or at least that it is an anomaly. And if subjective conclusions do not follow a logical pattern leading back to some largely accepted theory or relationship, it is likely to be subject to quite a bit of criticism from peers. So in that way, science is ethically regulated.
|
I appreciate the measured response. The conversations I've had with colleagues in various science departments were all quite informal, and not in depth in the least; I teach orchestral and jazz music performance, and do not mean to suggest that I am attending science conferences or otherwise engaged in an indepth daily basis with the workings of scientific research at the universities I've taught at. Comments I do recall being made by my scientist colleauges and friends will most likely be things you've already heard; climate change is, indeed, cyclical and expected regardless of the existence of man, the earth has an incredible power to heal itself, a lot of the data driving the observations of increased temperatures are coming from very specific locations where a great deal of very localized industrial buildup has occured and thereby strongly skewing global readings towards these isolated area averages, and other commonly expressed concerns about the data being gathered and the resultant interpretations. There is NO doubt that the climate is changing... it always will. I will say that if one stated that there is majority agreement that mankind is a factor, they would be correct. The discussion lies in how much of a factor, or even if the factor is significant enough that we can make a discerinable shift in the natural course of climate change by even a quantum shift in our way of life.
NONE of that is to say......, and I want to be clear here just in case (a) certain someone(s) see fit to suggest that I advocate littering, irresponsible and wasteful living, tossing as much plastic as possible into our oceans, and driving the largest, thirstiest vehicles possible for grocery-getting...... that we shouldn't explore cleaner, renewable energy resources, and strive to care for and respect the environment in which we live. We should. All things in good balance. The world is not going to end in ten years. It hasn't in the last four decades, each time we were given the message that the world was going to end in ten years. We are better stewards of the planet than we have ever been, and should continue to improve. Internal combustion engines are not evil. The current crop of electric cars, especially considering the majority of the current sources (no pun intended) that provide the electricity and energy for their use and manufacture, are pretty much a zero sum gain (and some would argue a slight deficit, although strides are being made). I am not opposed at all to electric cars; if the price comes down, you may see me driving a Tesla in the next couple years, or a Nikola if they ever get to market. I am very much opposed to being told I HAVE to.