Monday, December 13, 2010

If the science is persuasive, why the theatrics?

If the Science is so persuasive, why the theatrics?

Donna says it rather eloquently.  People have been concerned about "climate change" and its predecessor concepts "Global warming" and "Global cooling"  since the late 80s, but as she points out:

One scientist who, as scientists are wont, felt “very certain” his theories were correct. That’s all the evidence Wirth needed. And the rest, as they say, is history. Hansen’s testimony was a turning point -  after which the mainstream media, the environmental lobby, and much of the known world became critically concerned about climate change.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter: If Hansen’s scientific arguments were so convincing, if his evidence was so cut-and-dried, so “beyond debate,” why did Wirth stoop to political theatre, to “stagecraft” – as a television journalist charitably terms it?

In other words, why attempt to dramatize the concept?  Why not present the evidence in clear, concise, scientific terms and lay out the evidence such that it supports your conclusions?  Why not allow opposing viewpoints to view (review?) and work with the evidence to allow for a conclusion to be reached by all?  Why begin the process in the political arena first rather than the research arena?

There are all questions which have yet to be answered by proponents of anthropogenic climate change, and I believe that the tide is turning such that nothing further will be started until those questions have been answered.

No comments:

Post a Comment