Tom Friedman writes in the New York Times today:
"Frankly, I found it very disappointing to read a leading climate scientist writing that he used a “trick” to “hide” a putative decline in temperatures or was keeping contradictory research from getting a proper hearing. Yes, the climate-denier community, funded by big oil, has published all sorts of bogus science for years — and the world never made a fuss. That, though, is no excuse for serious climatologists not adhering to the highest scientific standards at all times."
I hate reasoning that states, "your logic or system of analysis only only applies to me when I choose." As Mr. Friedman states so well above, the climate-deniers can use scientific evidence against the climate-change scientists when it is in their favor. When it is not they will use pseudo-science to fight as much as possible. What is the difference between their pseudo-science and what the scientists in this Climate-gate scandal did? Nothing.
I have no real opinion about the climate debate. I am a conservative and take the practical conservative approach. Protecting the environment is a logical approach as in one case we are affecting the climate, and therefore we should do something about it. In the other view we not affecting the climate, but we are still pushing away from petrocratic rulers. Better to be safe... Mr. Friedman states it beautifully in his article.
No comments:
Post a Comment