Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Toro! Toro! Michael Crichton by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD
Toro! Toro! Michael Crichton by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD
It may well be just my bias, or more likely, a reflection of skepticism about the possibility of knowing things, but, I consistently wonder whether the term politicized science equally well fits the side of the skeptics of conventional global-warming theory as the proponents thereof. Understandably, the skeptics fear the Kyoto Treaty for the impacts it would have on human rights and economic progress. But to what extent does this impact their understanding of the science of climatology? I'm not sure.
Dr. Donald Miller seems to betray a bias like that when he writes: "Rather than cause catastrophic global warming, perhaps continued burning of fossil fuels will help forestall the onset of the next ice age." For, how could the burning help forestall an ice age, if it has minimal impact on the global climate?
On the other hand, I don't in the least doubt that many proponents of conventional theory are taken in by their own biases and weaknesses. For instance: the desire to limit industrialism; the natural deference to the authority of the establishment of scientific opinion.
In any event, the deeper issue, for me, despite the fact of the potential for harm done by measures proposed in response to society's understanding of this particular theory, is that I just don't know how knowledge should be gained. How should laymen obtain a degree of certainty? I am necessarily a layman, at least in most fields. And when I read the arguments offered by one or the other side, I tend to find them persuasive, at least in this case. (For instance, the evidence appears to be that the period of global warming in the last century preceded the period of the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so, it appears that the latter could not have caused the former.)
All I know is that I don't know nothing.
Link
It may well be just my bias, or more likely, a reflection of skepticism about the possibility of knowing things, but, I consistently wonder whether the term politicized science equally well fits the side of the skeptics of conventional global-warming theory as the proponents thereof. Understandably, the skeptics fear the Kyoto Treaty for the impacts it would have on human rights and economic progress. But to what extent does this impact their understanding of the science of climatology? I'm not sure.
Dr. Donald Miller seems to betray a bias like that when he writes: "Rather than cause catastrophic global warming, perhaps continued burning of fossil fuels will help forestall the onset of the next ice age." For, how could the burning help forestall an ice age, if it has minimal impact on the global climate?
On the other hand, I don't in the least doubt that many proponents of conventional theory are taken in by their own biases and weaknesses. For instance: the desire to limit industrialism; the natural deference to the authority of the establishment of scientific opinion.
In any event, the deeper issue, for me, despite the fact of the potential for harm done by measures proposed in response to society's understanding of this particular theory, is that I just don't know how knowledge should be gained. How should laymen obtain a degree of certainty? I am necessarily a layman, at least in most fields. And when I read the arguments offered by one or the other side, I tend to find them persuasive, at least in this case. (For instance, the evidence appears to be that the period of global warming in the last century preceded the period of the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so, it appears that the latter could not have caused the former.)
All I know is that I don't know nothing.
Comments:
Post a Comment
