Science vs. Ideology
When conversations turn to climate change and global warming, I usually keep quiet. Mostly, it's for fear of getting my head bitten off; also, however, not being a scientist, I know that I don't have a grasp of the facts and figures -- the underlying 'science'.
But it's time to come clean: I am a skeptic. Though the cries of "the earth is doomed if we don't overhaul our ways" are loud and almost universal, I'm not convinced.
"What! Are you crazy? Do you not have ears to hear? Eyes to see?" I can hear you thinking. "Haven't you heard of Al Gore?"
My attitude is captured well in an excerpt in today's Australian. The words were those of Cory Bernardi, a South Australian Liberal Senator. Frankly, I was refreshed to hear such sense from a politician. Here's the closing line from the excerpt, in case you don't get to read the whole piece:
I'd be glad to hear others' thoughts on this subject. But, please, be gentle with a man who has just 'come out'!
But it's time to come clean: I am a skeptic. Though the cries of "the earth is doomed if we don't overhaul our ways" are loud and almost universal, I'm not convinced.
"What! Are you crazy? Do you not have ears to hear? Eyes to see?" I can hear you thinking. "Haven't you heard of Al Gore?"
My attitude is captured well in an excerpt in today's Australian. The words were those of Cory Bernardi, a South Australian Liberal Senator. Frankly, I was refreshed to hear such sense from a politician. Here's the closing line from the excerpt, in case you don't get to read the whole piece:
Meeting Australia's long-term environmental challenges requires practical solutions balanced with the needs of our economy, not knee-jerk populist reactions based on conflicting scientific evidence.The article can be found at A call for cooler heads in the global warming debate .
I'd be glad to hear others' thoughts on this subject. But, please, be gentle with a man who has just 'come out'!
Labels: Climate Change, current affairs
posted by Sauntering Walker at 11:31 AM
6 Comments:
There was an interesting docco on channel 4 here a few weeks ago called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. I have read some recent criticism of some the facts and figures presented in it, but I thought it made some good points in contrast with the usual 'all scientists believe this and those that say they don't are funded by Exxon'. I think the title of your post is very appropriate, and publically-funded scientists are no less susceptible to idealogical thinking (and the politics of research funding) than those in the private sector.
what other skeletons do you have lingering in that cupboard of yours walker?
To be honest, I don't know what to think of the whole global-warming thing. My tendency is to want to 'lighten my foot-print' (to use a greenie phrase), but only so far as it makes me feel good and doesn't actually inhibit me from being my usual selfish self!
I'd like to know all the genuine science on the issue... but it is actually impossible to separate science + ideology as Dave suggested.
Hmmm...
Sandy
Thanks Dave and Sandy.
Dave: I just watched the opening of the 'Swindle' docco; looks interesting, and as though it might be close to where I am coming from.
Sandy: 'lightening the foot-print' is a cute-sounding phrase; but, I agree, it's hard to put into practice.
I first became skeptical when I read a piece by an Australian climatologist in Quadrant about 3 years ago. It was a 'sciency' article (i.e. dry!), but it seemed to put substance before rhetoric.
I also heard a segment on Radio National's Counterpoint program, in which Michael Duffy was at his delightfully contrarian best!
I'm a closet sceptic as well Chris. It appears to be a convenient story that the government is using to stimulate interest in alternative energy. Fancy that nuclear power seems to be the answer to CO2 reduction. Guess what Australia seems to have quite a bit off? (SA in particular).
I read an article recently in the March edition of the Van Eyk magazine, it predicts that "given the supply/demand imbalance and the 15 to 20 year period needed to alleviate this shortage, the prospect is for uranium to trade at $US500 per pound (up from the current price of $75 a pound)".
Interesting to also note that 'for the global economy to meet the target of 450ppm of CO2 by 2100, it will result in global GDP being $US50 trillion higher in 2050 that the 'business as usual estimates' - resulting in a cumulative total of $447 trillion creating the biggest economic opportunity of the century' (Barker, 2006). That’s a lot of new jobs and investment internationally, for such a doomsday outcome.
The climate change debate has nothing to do with the environment and those poor polar bears stranded on ice bergs, its about how many $$$ can be made from it. The government task force report on Nuclear power in Australia (2006) noted that "25 nuclear power stations… could supply 30% of the nations electricity needs by 2050". -that’s still almost 75% still generating CO2 though. Is this really going to solve our problems or postpone them? The debate is all about stimulating economic growth! The $$$ from mining our abundant uranium resources!
South Australia doesn't mind! We're looking forward to property growth similar to that of WA over recent years. But then again, who are we to really think that we can control any of this…
A paper titled "A Christian Response to Climate Change" by DJ Palmer, http://candn.pcvic.org.au/media/pdf/70214ClimateChange.pdf concluded:
Christians, again it is to be hoped, because of their professed commitment to the poor, would be disappointed if a preoccupation with combating global warming and its effects meant that the issues confronting the developing world, not so much melting glaciers and rising sea levels, but rather malnutrition, disease, clean water and better sanitation were ignored.
A good point to remember…
Barker, T., Hoaran, P., Kohler, J., Warren, R., Winne, S. (2006) Decarbonising the Global Economy with induced Technological Change, The Energy Journal, pp 143-160.
link got cut off above.
http://candn.pcvic.org.au/media/pdf/70214
ClimateChange.pdf
Post a Comment
<< Home