The seemingly conflicting science re climate change, for example, is proves how little we really know about this complex planet of ours and that an attitude of humble curiosity would serve us well. I am very shocked and concerned by some of the untenable and inflammatory remarks made by some scientists that judge and condemn the behavior and beliefs of those who doubt global warming.

The emotive nature of the debate has served to highlight, however, how nonobjective science, as currently practiced, has become; how subject it can be to political correctness; and how easily influenced by powerful interests of whatever political spectrum. A few years ago, it was almost impossible to get funding and money to study the impact of tobacco on cancer, for example and in the 80’s it was difficult to get funding to study possible anthropogenic causes of climate change. Then in both case, the political tide and public opinion turned.

The scientific community needs to operate free from political, media and economic interference if we are to be free. Environmentalists who sink to emotive statements such as “deniers are guilty of crimes against humanity” serve no one, even their own cause.

Finally, I resort to old fashioned common sense. The credit crunch we are now experiencing is the direct result of greed and hurts many innocent people. The environmental crunch is occurring because humans have forgotten that we live on a finite planet and the earth can only process and absorb so much of our waste. We’re living off our environmental credit cards. Instead of applying the precautionary principle to justify war, we’d be advised to apply it to a bigger issue – the question of how our species co-exists with other life forms on this planet.

3  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

Show Last Reply