"One more thing: perhaps there are some of you sitting there now saying "this guy's an alarmist! No way will it be this bad". Well, maybe you're right. But think about this: on almost every issue, the scientific community has one outlook and the general public has another. On almost every issue (GM crops and microwave ovens come to mind), the scientists are less alarmed about potential problems than are the public. In the case of global warming, the people who most closely study the situation are the most alarmed, and the public is telling them not to worry. Why is that? It's because the government tells us not to worry about it, without giving one shred of scientific evidence to back themselves up. Well, I'll go with the evidence, and with the scientific community. If that makes me sound alarmist to you, then maybe I am. And maybe you should be alarmed too."
I may have said this before, but this is a freaking excellent point. On all of these other issues, the scientists aren't alarmed. We don't cry wolf. The public may be alarmed, but scientists are still looking at the evidence.
But for Global Warming, scientists are very alarmed. Shouldn't this signify something to you?? Let's make a diagram:
Scientists think something will have mostly positive consequences (i.e. microwave ovens) -----> Public doesn't care.
Scientists think something new won't have positive or negative consequences (will just be a new tool, such as perhaps GMOs) -----> Public freaks out and decides all consequences will be bad.
Scientists think something will have potentially devastating consequences -----> Shouldn't the public be running for the hills?
Or is there no correlation here?
No comments:
Post a Comment