Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett
It's a belief system that the Right has fought to get taught in schools and have done so successfully. In their minds it "IS" science hence the reason that if they support it as a science how can their judgment on actual science related topics be trusted?
Really you know it as well as I do that there is no "real" argument among the scientific community about man having an effect on global warming. It's a argument being waged by political figures from the right wing.
Anything can of course be proven wrong, who knows maybe Jesus did ride with dinosaurs, however at some point you have to agree with simple logic and work with the best information you have at that time.
The information we have at this time, shows that we are having an affect ad we should try to stop it. Perhaps maybe in time that information will be dis-proven or further proven to be right. The question is, is the little evidence that doesn't support it worth the risk of doing nothing if the scientist are right?
|
None of this has anything to do with the dangers of people in authority discounting critical thinking by waving it off with a "the science is settled" attitude.
Nevertheless, the politicization of the science is only made worse with such statements.
Politics aside, I took steps years ago to reduce my carbon footprint/pollution output- I moved to adaptive reuse living, car sharing, several more steps I took to change my behavior, regardless of politics and politicians. My point in saying that is by focusing on the politics of it all and using terms like settled, distracts from what needs to be done- more people need to change their behavior, not just knock knock that the science is settled. We can disagree and still change behavior.
that's how our political system is supposed to work too.