When Reality Itself Becomes Partisan
Political disputes generally boil down to disagreements over the answers to normative questions. For example, should gay marriage be legal? Should we cut taxes on the wealthy? Should we crack down on illegal immigration? These are policy questions, sometimes moral questions. They do not have objective answers. They cannot be settled merely by performing tests and amassing empirical data. It is understandable, therefore, that people of different political persuasions would come to different conclusions with respect to these questions.
But for reasons I don't quite understand, the answers to purely descriptive questions often break down along partisan lines as well. The classic example of this phenomenon is the debate over global warming. The question of whether human activity is contributing to a rise in the world's temperature is purely descriptive in nature. It is either true or it is not true. It's no different than asking whether cigarettes cause cancer or the movement of tectonic plates cause volcanic activity. When descriptive questions are complex and empirical data is limited, reasonable people may of course disagree about the answer. But why on earth should this disagreement break down along partisan lines?
When it comes to issues like evolution, this partisan divide is more understandable. Yes, the evidence is overwhelming that evolution occurred. But some people are simply unable to reconcile their religious beliefs with the reality of evolution, so they choose to ignore reality. I don't claim to understand why this happens, but I understand that it does happen. I understand that religious beliefs are capable of trumping all others. And given the advantage the GOP enjoys among fundamentalist Christians, it makes sense to me that belief in evolution, though descriptive in nature, correlates to some extent with party affiliation.
But the partisan divide over global warming makes far less sense to me. I realize that the Republican party has traditionally been the party of big business and the protector of the oil industry, but that particular affinity hardly seems strong enough to explain why so many Republicans are so sure that the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue is wrong. I mean it's one thing to deny overwhelming empirical evidence because you genuinely believe that you have tapped into a higher Truth; it's quite another to deny overwhelming empirical evidence because you tend to prefer business-friendly fiscal policies.
As far as I know, the world's major religions are silent on the issue of whether the earth's temperature is rising, so all we have here are competing empirical conclusions. So it's pretty hard to understand how anyone (at least anyone who's not an expert climatologist) could possibly conclude that the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue is incorrect. This is essentially a debate between the majority of scientists on one side and a small cadre of dissenters on the other, many of whom are funded by the energy industry. Perhaps the dissenters are right. Who knows. But how in the world can so many Republicans be so sure that the vast majority of climate experts are wrong? From where do they derive this inexplicable confidence in the correctness of their descriptive worldview? It's baffling to me.
In Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Pete Du Pont--the former governor of Delaware-- provides a fairly typical example of the conservative approach to this issue. He begins by rattling off a number of bullet points about how environment conditions have improved over the last thirty years. My personal favorite is this one: "bald eagles, down to fewer than 500 nesting pairs in 1965, are now estimated to number more than 7,500 nesting pairs." That's great news; a few thousand more eagles and we won't even have to worry about global warming! There's also the added irony that none of the environmental accomplishments Du Pont lists would ever have been achieved had people like Pete Du Pont been in charge of our environmental policy.
Du Pont then goes on to highlight a few random facts that seem to be, at best, tangentially related to the core scientific case for global warming. He cites some past alarmist predictions that have not borne themselves out (one from a New York Times editorial and two from scientists in unrelated fields) and then cites a study on global warming funded by, among others, Exxon Mobil. He concludes with this:
Again I ask, on what basis does a layman like Du Pont claim to have a better grasp of the "truth" than the vast majority of the world's climate experts? I admit that I too am a layman when it comes this issue. And for that very reason, rationality compels me to at least tentatively conclude that the correct descriptive view is the one held by the vast majority of people knowledgeable about the subject. The same would be true if I was a diehard Republican.
Some skepticism is always in order. The scientific consensus is occasionally wrong. But to be confident that is wrong, particularly when you are not a climate expert yourself, is the height of hubris and the definition of irrationality. Reality itself is not partisan, and the answers to descriptive questions should not break down along party lines.
But for reasons I don't quite understand, the answers to purely descriptive questions often break down along partisan lines as well. The classic example of this phenomenon is the debate over global warming. The question of whether human activity is contributing to a rise in the world's temperature is purely descriptive in nature. It is either true or it is not true. It's no different than asking whether cigarettes cause cancer or the movement of tectonic plates cause volcanic activity. When descriptive questions are complex and empirical data is limited, reasonable people may of course disagree about the answer. But why on earth should this disagreement break down along partisan lines?
When it comes to issues like evolution, this partisan divide is more understandable. Yes, the evidence is overwhelming that evolution occurred. But some people are simply unable to reconcile their religious beliefs with the reality of evolution, so they choose to ignore reality. I don't claim to understand why this happens, but I understand that it does happen. I understand that religious beliefs are capable of trumping all others. And given the advantage the GOP enjoys among fundamentalist Christians, it makes sense to me that belief in evolution, though descriptive in nature, correlates to some extent with party affiliation.
But the partisan divide over global warming makes far less sense to me. I realize that the Republican party has traditionally been the party of big business and the protector of the oil industry, but that particular affinity hardly seems strong enough to explain why so many Republicans are so sure that the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue is wrong. I mean it's one thing to deny overwhelming empirical evidence because you genuinely believe that you have tapped into a higher Truth; it's quite another to deny overwhelming empirical evidence because you tend to prefer business-friendly fiscal policies.
As far as I know, the world's major religions are silent on the issue of whether the earth's temperature is rising, so all we have here are competing empirical conclusions. So it's pretty hard to understand how anyone (at least anyone who's not an expert climatologist) could possibly conclude that the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue is incorrect. This is essentially a debate between the majority of scientists on one side and a small cadre of dissenters on the other, many of whom are funded by the energy industry. Perhaps the dissenters are right. Who knows. But how in the world can so many Republicans be so sure that the vast majority of climate experts are wrong? From where do they derive this inexplicable confidence in the correctness of their descriptive worldview? It's baffling to me.
In Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Pete Du Pont--the former governor of Delaware-- provides a fairly typical example of the conservative approach to this issue. He begins by rattling off a number of bullet points about how environment conditions have improved over the last thirty years. My personal favorite is this one: "bald eagles, down to fewer than 500 nesting pairs in 1965, are now estimated to number more than 7,500 nesting pairs." That's great news; a few thousand more eagles and we won't even have to worry about global warming! There's also the added irony that none of the environmental accomplishments Du Pont lists would ever have been achieved had people like Pete Du Pont been in charge of our environmental policy.
Du Pont then goes on to highlight a few random facts that seem to be, at best, tangentially related to the core scientific case for global warming. He cites some past alarmist predictions that have not borne themselves out (one from a New York Times editorial and two from scientists in unrelated fields) and then cites a study on global warming funded by, among others, Exxon Mobil. He concludes with this:
The environmental pessimists tell us, as in Time magazine's
recent global warming issue, to "Be Worried. Be Very Worried,"
but the truth is that our environmental progress has been
substantially improving, and we should be very pleased.
Again I ask, on what basis does a layman like Du Pont claim to have a better grasp of the "truth" than the vast majority of the world's climate experts? I admit that I too am a layman when it comes this issue. And for that very reason, rationality compels me to at least tentatively conclude that the correct descriptive view is the one held by the vast majority of people knowledgeable about the subject. The same would be true if I was a diehard Republican.
Some skepticism is always in order. The scientific consensus is occasionally wrong. But to be confident that is wrong, particularly when you are not a climate expert yourself, is the height of hubris and the definition of irrationality. Reality itself is not partisan, and the answers to descriptive questions should not break down along party lines.
posted by A.L. at 11:05 PM
24 Comments:
But what if the consensus is right? Can we play Russian roulette with earth and take our chances? Just asking.
This is a moral issue for the conservative opinionmakers. They find environmentalism offsensive. Here's what Ayn Rand said on the environment:
"[O]bserve that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for "harmony with nature"—there is no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears. . . .
man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire."
They think that they have a right to drive their big cars and that because those rights are derived from "natural law," they must be consistent with reality. Their right to what Rand called "success at production" is an important data point to them on totally unrelated questions like global temperatures. More than a data point, even. It's the fulcrum of their entire worldview, and the facts have to revolve around it.
Jeffrey Friedman talked about this in an old article for Critical Review. These people have such rigid ideologies that they have a “perpetual obligation to defend” their position on every subject, even “before one has the necessary information to assess its accuracy.”
Its always easy to psychoanalyze people, esp. people you don't even know, but let me suggest the answer may lie in sales, i.e., what is the resistance to the "sale", why have certain people not "bought" into this idea, etc. IMHO, the call to action remains weak. The effect at the moment is weak, to the point of requiring massive data collection and sensitive calculations to even detect it. The future effects are speculative. Even if this is a problem, how is it going to affect me personally? Why should I personally sacrifice in order to find a "solution"? If I sacrifice, will others also sacrifice, or will they just get ahead at my expense? Might this just be an inevitable consequence of humankind's success on earth, one that we simply have to live with?
Not everyone is "wired" the same. Some work on thought and analysis, some go by intuition and immediacy. That's just the way it is.
I personally believe global warming is real and we should take responsibility for solving it, but I'm not at all surprised that most other people don't.
Worship at the alter of Money and this reality becomes easy to trump.
Machiavelli would be so proud.
I mean it's one thing to deny overwhelming empirical evidence because you genuinely believe that you have tapped into a higher Truth; it's quite another to deny overwhelming empirical evidence because you tend to prefer business-friendly fiscal policies.
There's nothing mysterious going on here. They're lying.
The same would be true if I was a diehard Republican
Perhaps your self-described effort "to rely on empirical evidence and logical analysis" precludes your being diehard Republican. I think the partisan breakdown on issues such as Global Warming hinges on this point: For you, "rationality compels", but for many Republicans Reason is easily outstripped by Faith, be that faith in free markets, supreme beings, or gut feelings (assuming there is any difference!)
Actually, I don't find this disagreement about the state of the world to be all that surprising. You find it all the time in discussions with wingers:
1. "Are things going well in Iraq?" is also a descriptive question, but wingers think things are going very well.
2. "Was John Kerry a war hero?" is a descriptive question, but wingers seem to believe it was all made up.
3. Was Valarie Plame working undercover for the CIA?
I'm sure if we spent a few minutes we could make a very long list. The environment is just one of many issues along these lines. Indeed, the whole "reality-based community" sneer went exactly to this point.
Finally, as you will recall, there was a survey which showed that those people who regularly got there news from Fox, were objectively much more incorrect about very facts in the world as compared to those who got there news from other sources.
Exceptionally good comments today. All your points are well taken.
Most of us (liberal or conservative) are inclined to believe that which reinforces or conforms to our worldview, and further to believe that what we believe is empirically true rather than mere opinion.
Your piece demonstrates this tendency. For example, you say that probably:
"[T]he correct descriptive view is the one held by the vast majority of people knowledgeable about the subject"
I submit that there are several non-empirical elements to that seemingly empirical statement.
For example, the set of people "knowledgeable" about the subject begs definition. You and I might both agree that it includes Ph.Ds in atmospheric sciences, and in some but not other branches of physics or of chemistry, computer modeling experts. But what about Master's level folks, Bachelor level folks, autodidacts? What about people whose fields are economics, demographics, statistics, oceanography, agriculture, or engineering?
Your post also implies you would exclude anyone who works for any entity that receives any portion of its funding from Exxon. Others might exclude any scientist whose livelihood is dependent upon politicized academic departments or government bureaucracies, or who is, like Galileo, "reality-based" enough to recant or keep quiet for fear of being savaged if his or her view is politically unacceptable.
So we might disagree about the effect of bias on knowledge, who is biased, and the weight that should be given to bias. Then we might also disagree on whether, for example, knowledgeable people include psychologists and logicians who could contribute to an understanding of how faddish thinking can sweep away otherwise knowledgeable people's common sense.
Even if we could agree on the set of people we're talking about, I don't believe there is any empirical evidence as to what "the vast majority" of them believe. That kind of polling would be extremely difficult and I don't believe it's been done.
The claim is constantly made that there is a "scientific concensus" on the issue of the human effect on global warming, but the last two IPCC reports suggest that claim is a vast overstatement. (I am referring here to the portions of the report actually discussing the science, not to the political summaries prepared for wider lay readership, which are the portions usually quoted.)
There is no real certainty about the extent to which warming has occurred or will occur and the range of possible warming is a wide one. Even if it were possible to pin down the percentage of contribution to warming that human endeavors have caused, a percentage of an unknown is still an unknown.
That doesn't mean there is no global warming or that humans haven't had an effect on it or that it might not impose some significant costs of future generations (as well as some benefits).
Personally, I am inclined to believe on a more probable than not basis (but by no means by a clear and convincing standard) that there is global warming, it is partially (though possibly not meaningfully) caused by humans and that it may cause some problems.
But I wouldn't be inclined to trust a doctor who said I should have major exploratory surgery with a serious risk of permanent disability or death, even though it's not clear what I'm sick with, how sick I am, or even, with absolute certainty, that I'm sick at all, and no assurance that the surgeon could do about it even if she found out the answers to those questions.
The insistence on an acceptance of human-caused global warming is indeed very like a demand for a theological credo.
I have a rather simpler explanation - 'teams'. If my team is always right, then your team must be wrong. Ergo, because Al Gore is an environmental champion, those to the right cannot believe him to be correct, and so simply do not so believe. Intellectually coherent? Not really, but it certainly holds together psychologically. And I don't think we on the left are immune - I'm not sure there is much that certain people could say where I woldn't feel an immediate urge to believe the opposite - trying to resist that impulse is a key to maintaining 'rationality'.
Well.... I think there is a well-established process of promulgating a 'mass belief', that seems very clear to me in the right wing case, though less so in the left wing case. (Either I'm less critical, or we do it less.)
The think tanks and policy institutes, funded to affect public opinion, have been spewing this non-warming perspective for decades. That's enough for most right wingers to (a) believe it implicitly (b) take any disagreement as an attack on their team.
Furthermore one particularly effective ploy in cases like this, has been to frame all disagreements as attempts by the Left to disrespect and suppress the values of the Right, which must be vigously disputed as their very survival is at stake.
In sum what I am trying to articulate in this tiny little typing window, is that issue after issue where we split along party lines, have been CREATED to be mini-wedge issues, by the taste-making manipulators of the "right".
Can you say 'taxes are a social good', anyone?
Jim Papadopoulos
Two things:
1) The most amazing example to me, of political bias affecting objective opinion, is one
involving interpretaion of the Constitution.
Does the constitution or does it not allow or
require a recount of votes in a situation
like that in Florida in the year 2000?
Why should it be that on that narrow legal question there was a court split on idealogical lines?
What if the role of Gore and Bush had been reversed? Can we pretend that only the conservative members of the court would have reversed their opinions? Only liberals stear
their objective opinions with their political
feelings?
2) On global warming I have to say, looking at myself, that because I trust the motivations of the academic liberals more, I also trust their judgment about global warming more. Also, because I weigh Nature relatively more than Man, I am inclined to believe something which tends to favor Nature. My opinion about global warming is not really fact based in my case. Or even based on an objective look at the relative expertise of the opinions that are broadcast.
So, though I resent the right for their lack of objectivity, I don't think that I, or the rest of us liberals, am/are particularly better. Much as we would hope that we were.
Anonyous(7:58),
You write:
For example, you say that probably:
"[T]he correct descriptive view is the one held by the vast majority of people knowledgeable about the subject"
That's hardly a fair quote. You excised out the key part of the sentence. I wrote: "I admit that I too am a layman when it comes this issue. And for that very reason, rationality compels me to at least tentatively conclude that the correct descriptive view is the one held by the vast majority of people knowledgeable about the subject."
My point was that because I am not a climate expert, rationality compels me to tenatively conclude that the consensus of climate experts is correct. You ascribe an absolutist element to my opinion that is quite clearly absent. In fact, I agree with you, the rational conclusion is that "more likely than not" global warming is a real phenomenon. My problem is not with people who retain a healthy level of skepticism. My problem is with people who are absolutely sure that the consensus is wrong. You're arguing with a straw man.
I (Anonymous 7:58) did not take your quote to be absolutist, which is why I prefaced it with the word "probably."
I think in fact you do have a problem with people who retain a healthy skepticism. You seem to have a problem with Pete DuPont, for example, even though his piece is a perfectly reasonable response to the scare tactics of the Al Gore environmental wing.
There is nothing wrong with reminding people about how wrong past environmental alarmists have turned out to be. You say that is only tangentially related to the core scientific case for global warming, but the reality is that the scientific case for predictions of future global environmental changes is inherently highly unreliable.
People with healthy skepticism are not going to be inclined to take measures that will dramatically lower their own and the world's standard of living and turn over economic and political control of their country to unaccountable international agencies. For reasons that escape me, much of the left historically has favored measures that do that in a variety of areas; no doubt that is one of the reasons for the the partisan divide you properly call attention to on this issue.
It is ironic that, when it comes to national security, the left consistently accuses the right of appealing to people's fears to justify governmental power grabs, but the left is not just comfortable but enthused with Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance" approach. The trailer for his movie is "the scariest movie you'll ever see," and he justifies his "overrepresentation of the factual presentation of how dangerous it is" as necessary because we aren't scared enough yet to suit him.
As for the theological nature of a lot of global warming folks, look at your 10:23 poster, who says:
"because I weigh Nature relatively more than Man, I am inclined to believe something which tends to favor Nature."
Weighing, favoring and valuing are attributes of Man. To claim that one places a higher value on anything than on Man is to implicitly accept that there is some supernatural entity that shares those attributes - to either deify or anthropomorphize "Nature."
After all, Mars and Venus are just as much "Nature" as Earth, and the only reason we wouldn't like Earth to end up that way is because it wouldn't suit us - Man. "Nature" doesn't care in the least what the composition of our atmosphere is.
If you believe God created the Earth the way it is and we are tasked with keeping it that way, that is a theological and immensely irrational point of view. Not the least because "the way it is" is subject to tremendous natural variations of climate over time whether or not Man does anything about it.
Considering how much worse for Man even a mini-ice age would be than the most alarmist view of possible global warming, and how much more of Earth's history has been colder, who's to say we shouldn't be trying to warm it up as much as we can to soften the effects of the inevitable next cold spell? If we are to make enormous sacrifices to safeguard the interests of near-term future generations, why should we not also consider longer-term future generations?
I should have been clearer that my view is that
1) more probably than not there is some current global warming (probably minor) and
2) some (probably minor) human involvement in it which
3) may have some negative as well as some positive consequences the net of which is hard to calculate.
That doesn't mean I think there is much we could or should do about it other than adapt, which Man is very good at. I haven't seen anyone run the numbers, but I suspect the cost of adaptation, even though possibly quite high, would be much lower than the cost of trying to tweak the global climate to suit us.
But one issue on which there seems to be no partisan divide is that sentiment should trump reasonable adaptation. Otherwise why in the world would we be rebuilding New Orleans without discussing reengineering the Mississipi?
People with healthy skepticism are not going to be inclined to take measures that will dramatically lower their own and the world's standard of living and turn over economic and political control of their country to unaccountable international agencies. For reasons that escape me, much of the left historically has favored measures that do that in a variety of areas; no doubt that is one of the reasons for the the partisan divide you properly call attention to on this issue.
You're still, I think, missing my point. The question of what steps, if any, we should take to combat global warming is a policy question, one on which reasonable people may differ. I'm pretty sure you and I differ on that normative question. My post, however, addressed the threshold descriptive questions of whether global warming is occuring and whether that warming is caused by human actions. With respect to those threshold questions, I just don't see why that should be a partisan issue. It's a purely descriptive question. You can make a normative case that the costs of trying to combat warming outweigh the benefits while still accepting the empirical facts regarding whether warming is occuring.
Long story short, you are focusing on the prescriptive element of the debate, which is fundamentally normative, not the descriptive part, which was the subject of my post.
As a descriptive statement, would you not agree that throughout 100% of the Earth's history, the globe has been either warming or cooling?
The only importance of the facially descriptive statement "there is global warming and humans cause it" is in its implicit normative message, that this is something to worry about and that something should be done about it.
Since the normative prescriptions in the global warming discussion are so severe, it is not surprising that critics of the prescriptions will insist that proponents be 'put to the proof,' as they used to say, on their descriptive statements as well.
And one of the reasons for that is demonstrated in your last post, where you talk about the threshold question of "whether global warming is caused by human actions." I have heard no responsible scientist contend that "global warming is caused by human actions." At best, human actions are cited as a contributing factor of uncertain proportion. I wonder: Do you agree with that descriptive statement? And if it troubles you to do that, doesn't your partisanship have a great deal to do with that reluctance?
The only importance of the facially descriptive statement "there is global warming and humans cause it" is in its implicit normative message, that this is something to worry about and that something should be done about it.
I totally disagree. If Democrats say that the sky is blue and Republicans say that the sky is red, that's a noteworthy fact, even if it doesn't make one lick of difference what color the sky is.
My point was that, in the global warming debate, we see significant disagreement over the basic descriptive facts. I find this puzzling because the disagreement within the scientific community is much less stark. There is a general consensus that the earth is warming and (at least based on what I've read) that human activity is a contributing factor to that warming. I agree that there is less of a consensus on the second point (which is the most important in terms of policy considerations), but I think most climatologists agree with the second statement as well.
Since the normative prescriptions in the global warming discussion are so severe, it is not surprising that critics of the prescriptions will insist that proponents be 'put to the proof,' as they used to say, on their descriptive statements as well.
Nonsense. If I claim that we're all going to die because the sky is blue, it is not logical to respond by questioning whether the sky is in fact blue. Similarly, if you believe that global warming is not a big deal or the steps needed to prevent it are too costly, that does not justify denying its existance (unless you have a sound empirical reason for doing so).
It is not rational to dismiss well-established empirical evidence simply becuase you disagree with the policies proposed in response to that evidence.
I am not dismissing "well- established empirical evidence," so much as denying that what empirical evidence there is rises to the level of certainty that it can rationally be called "well-established."
Labeling something "scientific evidence" causes non-scientists to misapprehend the descriptive power it carries. Scientific assessments of causal relationships and predictions of future events may be the best scientists can do and accordingly are scientific evidence, but that doesn't make them "reality."
Two examples:
Attribution of causes:
When my mother became forgetful 25 years ago, the diagnosis of Altzheimer's was ultimately arrived at several years later mostly by ruling out to the extent possible other possible causes. However, the certainty of that diagnosis could not be established at the time other than by autopsy. (I don't know whether better diagnostic tools exist today.)
In climate change, the ability to rule out possible causes is far more limited since much of it relies on data about ancient times, derived from sources that we have no ability to verify accurately reflect those times.
Prediction:
Last week I planned a day off to stay home and do some gardening and yard work. I carefully checked the weather forecast for the week and chose one of the three days that were predicted to be free of precipitation. Those predictions were based upon well-established scientific evidence. Nevertheless, it rained all three of those days.
Because lay people all have experience with weather forecasts and their accuracy, we can easily understand and are not likely to be misled by a descriptive statement that the scientific evidence is well-established that it will or will not rain on some particular day in the Spring. We understand the inherent limitations of that descriptive statement. The same is not true of what you refer to as descriptive statements about global warming.
Most of what you object to as rejections of the "reality" of global warming are simply efforts to make clear how deceptive such descriptive statements are as expressions of "reality."
That, for instance, was what I saw as the point of Pete DuPont's reminders about past predictions proven wildly inaccurate.
To use your weather analogy, suppose the weatherman predicted, based on his computer forecasting models, that there was going to be a massive blizzard next week. You're certainly right that all intelligent people would understand that prediction to be subject to certain predictive limitations, and would not be surprised if the blizzard never came.
But under those circumstances, it is still rational to expect that a blizzard is coming and to plan accordingly. If the weathermen are all predicting that a blizzard is coming, it would be pretty strange if I went around telling everyone that I was certain they were wrong and pointing out incessently that the weatherman have been known to be wrong in the past.
Yes, scientifics sometimes get things wrong. And there are inherent and significant limitations to our predictive powers. But it's irrational to hear that there is a 90% chance of rain and plan your life around the possibility that it won't rain.
I see you did not understand my point at all (5:46 and 1:16 posts). Perhaps it is my inadequacy or perhaps your partisanship that is interfering with our communication. C'est la vie.
Have a good Memorial Day.
Anonymous,
I have appreciated your comments so far, but that last one is pretty weak. I may be many things, but a partisan I am not.
anon @ 1:16 said...
Most of what you object to as rejections of the "reality" of global warming are simply efforts to make clear how deceptive such descriptive statements are as expressions of "reality."
Back in the day similar magnanimously atruistic and scupulously honest tobacco scientists hinged their watertight arguments on such deception as well.
As with reality, the applicability of lessons learned from history also seems to be partisan as well.
actually the young earth, ID believing, christians dont believe in global warming either.
A God wouldnt let that happen
B god gave us dominion over the earth and expects us to take advantage of that
C Jesus will come save us before it gets too hot... after all global warming is just a sign hell on earth is on the way.
My world looks flat to me, too, but I know it is not because civil governments and supportive public infrastructure foundations have enabled scientific literacy to produce a safe environment for the many.
But now that GW Bush's cabal assumes that private profit justifies all and that the private self can take from the many to get for the self and then blast off to the moon or mars to escape the Hell they have created, well, then, er, I guess it's all over.
Or is it?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home