Anyway, the reason I brought it up here is that in looking at that aforementioned honor roll, it reminded me of something I read many many years ago in a comic book retelling the origin of Superman. Here's the relevant sequence:
Obviously, I'm not suggesting that E. Nelson Bridwell, Carmine Infantino & Curt Swan (the writer and artists responsible for the above version of Superman's origin story, from, I'm guessing, the mid-seventies) somehow predicted the current crisis, only that they were prescient in recognizing that political hacks were sure to denounce the results of scientific inquiry they didn't want to believe. I don't know if this is a manifestation of the long tradition of anti-intellectualism in this country's history, or just blind stupidity, but I worry that it's not doing any of us any good.
7 comments:
Dr John,
While, again, I can follow and even to some extent feel compelled to agree with your statements, I find it funny how you accuse this to be a fight between the scientists claiming "extinction if we don't do something now" and the politics that say it is nothing. When in fact there are just as many scientists ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming )who claim peoples speeding up global warming is much overrated and there are many politics claiming the doom and gloom (Al Gore and followers). As with any topic such as this you simply cannot lump all one group together.
I once heard a conversation with a scientist from Scotland (sorry don't remember the name) who said the earth is a big boy and can take care of itself - all the history of the world (billions of years) that have been examined bear that out. The earth will always adapt! What we as a people are doing is killing ourselves. Now that is what we need to figure out and solve!
Lil' Sis
PS As I read the comic it claims the destruction of Krypton but it seems a natural (no mention of the people affecting the outcome) disaster and then the discussion by the politicians of the planet (or is Jor-El a scientist that I am not aware of - didn't read these comics as much when I was little =)
Lil Sis,
You're arguing against a point I did not make. I asserted a scientific consensus on the fact of global warming, not the cause. On the list you cite, there are only three names of scientists who dispute global warming (and in their quotes, even they acknowledge at least the possibility); all the others admit it is occurring, but have questions about cause, effect, etc. For a summary view of that consensus (and what "consensus" means in the scientific community, check out the story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html. The line about facing extinction isn't mine, and I wasn't saying the comic strip narrative matches what's happening now in that extreme, except insofar as the politicians are laughing off the warnings of the scientist (which amounts to the same thing as Imhofe calling global warming a hoax). You're right there are politicians on the other side of the fence as well, but here's the question to ask: are they serving special interests in going along with the scientific consensus, the way someone like Imhofe (with close ties to the oil industry) is? Maybe they are, but it certainly isn't so obvious (even Gore's efforts at sounding the alarm came after he was out of politics). My point isn't that we are facing impending doom (nor do I think that's part of the scientific consensus), but we are facing some significant changes, regardless of cause, and it makes sense to plan how we might deal with them rather than stick our heads in the sand.
Dr. John
Dr John,
Personally, yes, I believe that every politician out there is serving a special interest (themselves) when they take up the question as to global warming. Here is an article in the NY Times from last year that I think, addresses how people (scientists, politicians, activists) will pull out what they believe substantiates their views:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
Significant changes are happening (maybe faster than could be possibly good for life), but isn't that what evolution is all about.
Life is all about change... How we deal with it and make it for the good of all is the question (problem) we all need to work on - and it doesn't help when activist like Al Gore will use selective points to scare us does not solve issues. What is he God? (that last comment could be applied to all people who want to control life/progress for their own personal reward/pat on the back/feel good). This world, earth, is changing, but to ignore cycles, growth and even climatic events and only focus on people's bad habits does no one good. People of the world do need to change their ideas of what progress is, they need to be more sympathetic to their environment. But when you have several volcano's erupting pouring chemicals into the air that affect the world globally, earthquakes that have tsunamis destroying coast lands, whats the point of scaring the populations. We need to learn to live in our environment -ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.
Lil' Sis
PS here is another post to read:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=68277
Lil' Sis
Lil Sis,
So, if I understand your line of reasoning correctly, allowing bad behavior to continue (that is, behavior that we know is unhealthy, potentially dangerous or unsafe) is natural, but calling attention to those things is playing God? Even if we allow that different forces have an impact on climactic change (which is in fact true of the scientific debate), and that we can't control all of them, why does that eliminate responsibility for making the kind of changes that are within our power, to make the lives of people (and other co-inhabitants of the planet) more healthy, safe or comfortable? Isn't a decision to do nothing, when we may have the capacity to do something constructive in response to these changes, as imperious a decision as anything Gore (or science) has done in issuing the warning? It almost seems like you are arguing that man is somehow apart from nature (as opposed to a part of it), and therefore bears no responsibility in maintaining some kind of productive relationship with his environment. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.
Dr. John
Dr John,
Let me make this simple... Do I believe that global warming is happening now - Yes to an extent. Do I believe that man has anything to do with this - Yes to an extent. Do I try to live my life in such a way to be a good steward of the planet - Yes!
What I have a problem with is the scientist/activists who are crying that the sky is falling due primarily to mankind. The amount of publicity about man's destruction of the world is (I feel) disproportionate to the acknowledgment of the natural occurrences of volcano's, earthquakes, and natural cycles of the planet. Like any argument you can find points on both sides that substantiate your argument, I am trying to straddle the issue and acknowledge problems without ignoring ALL points.
Lil' Sis
Lil Sis,
Fair enough, but I'm still troubled by you lumping scientists together with activists. My original point was that I don't see the scientists as having an axe to grind (as opposed to the politicians, certain industries, and including some activists) in this debate, at least not as their starting point for staking out a position. In other words, in reporting the findings of their research, they aren't motivated by personal profit or gain the way others might be. You've referred to Gore (who is not a scientist), John Tierney, who is a well-known pro-business, conservative journalist (also not a scientist); and a scientist who works for Congressional Republicans. If Gore is guilty of alarmism, what attributes of the other two make them more credible or objective to you, aside from the fact they disagree with Gore?
Dr. John
Post a Comment