Carol Platt Liebau: Just a Matter of Trust

Friday, June 23, 2006

Just a Matter of Trust

The LA Times this morning treats us to a story on global warming, complete with the admonition that "the nation's preeminent scientific body" not only believes that the phenomenon is real, but that it is influenced by humans.

One can't help but wonder how many of the people who have refused to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq insist on believing in global warming. How many of those who are convinced that the Bush administration "pressured" analysts to come to certain results to justify the invasion of Iraq -- and have pushed investigations of that matter -- are willing seriously to investigate credible claims that scientists who dissent from the global warming credo are being professionally punished for it? How many of the people who called for a full national debate on Iraq now have no interest in there being a national debate, with both sides being able to present evidence, about global warming?

I'm a global warming agnostic -- which means I'd like to weigh the evidence on both sides. We never seem to hear it.

Rather, all the people who were quite willing for a jack-booted thug to sit on piles of WMD absent 100% dispositive evidence that the WMD were there are now very willing to accept a lot of projections, estimates and approximations, and use them as a basis for passing restrictive laws that could result both in harm to the American economy and significant restrictions on limit Americans' personal freedoms.

I guess it's all a matter of where one places one's faith. Many of the same people who would scorn the assessment of the "nation's preeminent body" when it comes to Iraq or Iran are willing to tout the findings of the "the nation's preeminent scientific body" when it comes to the environment. Do you trust the people who believe in American might, or those who want to constrain it?

Update: According to the piece in the New York Times, caveats to the study were dropped. One other thing worth noting: In the ledes of the both NY Times and the LA Times stories, it refers to the outfit issuing the report as the "nation's pre-eminent scientific body." Coincidence? Or cribbing from a particularly compelling press release?

13 Comments:

Blogger Dittohead said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:51 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Oh please Carol you are an intelligent woman, science is not a political debate. Go to your library and read the fully peer reviewed articles by leading scientists in leading scientific journals. Don't you care about your children's and grandchildren's future?

Why is it so easy for you to cast off your responsiblity as a good christian to be a good steward of God's creation?

10:09 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Next, Carol will tell us she doesn't believe smoking cigarettes is bad for one's health.

10:27 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

Are you sure, Ditto, these "fully peer reviewed articles" say what you claim or think they say?

You MIGHT be right. I'll grant that much. But considering what has come of some of your recent claims ...

... I'm just sayin' ...

10:36 AM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Hey, Greg,

Why don't you go find out for yourself?

10:41 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Greg,

Carol can substantiate her believe by siting peered review scientific articles (not fluff op-eds) that refute the leading scientists...but, she can't. They don't exist.

Check it out for yourself.

11:03 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

Hey, I was just sayin' ...

12:14 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Oh please Carol you are an intelligent woman, science is not a political debate.

I have to chuckle a little bit. Are you a working scientist, ditto?

1:01 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

eLarson,

YES!

3:55 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

More embarrassment for you Carol. One day you'll regret writing all this junk.

5:24 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Have you not seen any of the fierce debates between camp A supporting one theory and camp B supporting another?

6:00 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

In light of Bush's position, those that wish to disagree with him are traitors and definitely not patriots.

President Bush said, "And in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment."

10:56 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

If I may adopt the stance of a Koster...
Clearly BushCo has a line on alternative energy sources and he's saving it for Haliburton!
(/Koster)

If there were a way to tell the Saudi royal family to stick their oil tankers where the sun don't shine, I'd be all for it. Sadly there's really nothing readily available in 2006 that's going to replace oil. As far as I'm concerned that's a far better reason for seeking alternative energy sources.

As to Global Climate Change, the climate of the world has changed markedly over the past 5 billion-odd years, ranging from the Carboniferous Age through the Ice Ages of the Pleistocene to our present inter-glacial period. The place I lived in prior to DC once sat under an inland sea judging by all the seashell fossils we'd find.

Regardless of what humans do, it will continue to change. (Unless we figure out a way to stop, say, the sunspot cycle. I doubt it will happen ever, let alone in our lifetimes...)

12:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google