Comments on: Joel Achenbach on Weather Extremes http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4495 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: JamesG http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4495&cpage=1#comment-10648 JamesG Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:22:34 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/joel-achenbach-on-weather-extremes-4495#comment-10648 Stifling of debate, name-calling, media overhype. It's certainly a lot like the run-up to the Iraq war in the US. Seems it was naive to assume that people might have learnt something from that recent experience. Of course it all stems from these arrogant scientists who are pushing their biased interpretations of ambiguous data as "evidence". It isn't - it's remains hypothesis and conjecture of worst-case scenarios. There have been many other such misuses of the public trust by scientists before and in many fields but this one will ultimately damage the green movement and science itself. And it's not at all necessary because we all agree that it makes a lot of sense to pursue greener alternative fuels and we all know that currently fossil fuel use is still unavoidable. Hence we're in it together. The only issue should be one of direction. People seem to be taking up antagonistic positions simply to alleviate their own guilt complex, despite their own behaviour not being particularly green. If people are actually using less fossil fuels now it's bilateral and purely because of the cost. Some are honest about it and others aren't but the real truth can be seen in the spike in the presidential ratings whenever the oil price dips. Thus has it ever been. Stifling of debate, name-calling, media overhype. It’s certainly a lot like the run-up to the Iraq war in the US. Seems it was naive to assume that people might have learnt something from that recent experience. Of course it all stems from these arrogant scientists who are pushing their biased interpretations of ambiguous data as “evidence”. It isn’t – it’s remains hypothesis and conjecture of worst-case scenarios.

There have been many other such misuses of the public trust by scientists before and in many fields but this one will ultimately damage the green movement and science itself. And it’s not at all necessary because we all agree that it makes a lot of sense to pursue greener alternative fuels and we all know that currently fossil fuel use is still unavoidable. Hence we’re in it together. The only issue should be one of direction.

People seem to be taking up antagonistic positions simply to alleviate their own guilt complex, despite their own behaviour not being particularly green. If people are actually using less fossil fuels now it’s bilateral and purely because of the cost. Some are honest about it and others aren’t but the real truth can be seen in the spike in the presidential ratings whenever the oil price dips. Thus has it ever been.

]]>