One of the most difficult things we can do is change our minds on a strong, long held belief so we seek out confirmation that supports our policies instead of looking for evidence that challenges what we believe.
That's why when someone does a complete u-turn they should either be applauded that they are brave enough to to hold up their hands and admit that they were wrong or welcomed with a 'took your time didn't you' comment.
That is the difference between science and religion, not many religious people study the evidence and think oh my, I've been wrong all this time and the whole God thing is a crock, what was i thinking?
Luckily for us scientists do which is why Prof Richard Muller, self described climate change sceptic, has looked at the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, and after a three year three-year study concluded that not only is the world warming but that it matches perfectly to the raised levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and 'it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases'.
So one of the thinning number of scientists left who kept up the argument that Global Warming is not happening has seen the light and as that affirms my beliefs so i like it.
Short of becoming a climate-scientist, all we can do is accept these things on authority and bow to the knowledge of people who are climate scientists and if the mainstream scientific opinion of places like the Royal Society, the Royal Institution, NASA, the US National Academy of Sciences, the US Geological Survey and the IPCC say the Globe is warming and it is due to mans actions, you have to be a glutton for punishment to continue to argue against them, especially if you are not a climate expert yourself.
5 comments:
what struck me was that until today i never heard of him. we have always heard, only a few disagree. hmmm. i wonder how many disagree and never get heard? i wonder if we knew how many really disagree and knew why how it would change the discussion, testing, experiments, etc. speculation for sure, but plausible...
q
I hadn't heard of him either but the New York Times seemed to think that him changing his mind was a big deal.
Your first sentence reminds me of this quote:
"Given the choice between changing one’s mind and proving there’s no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof" - JK Galbraith
Given that climatology is a extremely technical area and it would take me literally years and years worth of study to approach the most advanced minds in the field, I let my thinking on the subject be mainly shaped, not by the loudest and most braying amateur voices on the internet, but by the scientific consensus, which is, currently, very solidly behind man-made global warming - although there is valid debate about the extent. If and when peer-reviewed non-corporatised scientific research causes this consensus to change, my thinking is likely to follow.
The bottom line then, is that my opinion on this matter isn't worth a hill of beans. Not many peoples' are worth more... yet many don't appear to realise this!
cheezy,
i agree that volume does not matter. if you look back you will see that i'm an extreme critic of "widsom of the masses". it is a joke to me. the masses only know about their own major trends are and don't even understand why they are trending one way or another - sheep.
i was refering to in-depth thought leaders - with actual experience. part of the problem i had with al gore was that the "scientists" backing his study included the likes of el-hi teachers that got BS degree and started teaching - they never did research or even did extensive work in their degree field.
q
Are you referring to 'Earth in the Balance'? I remember reading that book as an undergrad. My verdict was: Too much God, not enough science. However it did get more people talking about ecology at least.
Post a Comment