OffTopic: Global Warming
It's Saturday, so I'm detouring away from Iraq news to express some amazement at the headline of an article I came across today: "Science: Greenhouse gases 'do warm oceans'". Wow! Some reporter was able to discuss global warming directly with "Science." I wish I had that contact info.
I won't get into the debate over global warming, I just think its preposterous for media organizations to report about the subject in this manner. Here's an interesting take from Michael Crichton ("Jurrasic Park" and "ER" fame, but also a Harvard Med School graduate):
"Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?"
"Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horsesh*t? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?"
and, most importantly
"Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-- science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science."
Let's have an open and honest debate on this and other subjects, instead of a rejection of dialogue.