I've been catching up the past few days on some missed episodes of Real Time with Bill Maher. During one of the segments, a conservative radio talk host (Amy something or other) was disagreeing with Bill about whether or not climate change or global warming -- whatever you wish to call it -- is a real scientific phenomena. Bill believes it is real; she doesn't necessarily think so.
What really got me was her main argument: some climate scientists are unsure. She granted Bill's point that there is little question of human-caused climate change by the vast majority of scientists in the field. However, because a minority disagree, she contends that the jury is still out.
The problem with this kind of argument is that NOTHING is certain. I can't think of one thing we humans know for certain. Most of us expect the sun to rise tomorrow, but we don't know if it will! Many people believe that they will go to heaven when they die, but none of them know for sure that this is where they will end up.
We don't know for certain what life (or death, for that matter) really is. We don't know what is real versus what is illusion. We often don't know what we don't know and, even further, we often don't know what we think we know.
So, if a person decides that he/she or the collective shouldn't act until something is known for certain, then we can't exist. We can't move a muscle or bat an eyelash. We can't think a thought or dream a dream. We can't be anything.
Consequently, since we are unable to assign certainty to anything, the best we can do is to go with those things that seem fairly certain. If the vast majority of climate scientists contend that climate change is real, it would seem smart to act and behave as If this was a certainty -- at least as far as public policy is concerned.
If anyone personally doesn't buy in to this less than certain conclusion, fine. Don't buy into it. But your uncertainty over the perceived certainty of something shouldn't leave everyone else in the lurch, if the perceived certainty turns out to be a facsimile of what we refer to as truth.
What really got me was her main argument: some climate scientists are unsure. She granted Bill's point that there is little question of human-caused climate change by the vast majority of scientists in the field. However, because a minority disagree, she contends that the jury is still out.
The problem with this kind of argument is that NOTHING is certain. I can't think of one thing we humans know for certain. Most of us expect the sun to rise tomorrow, but we don't know if it will! Many people believe that they will go to heaven when they die, but none of them know for sure that this is where they will end up.
We don't know for certain what life (or death, for that matter) really is. We don't know what is real versus what is illusion. We often don't know what we don't know and, even further, we often don't know what we think we know.
So, if a person decides that he/she or the collective shouldn't act until something is known for certain, then we can't exist. We can't move a muscle or bat an eyelash. We can't think a thought or dream a dream. We can't be anything.
Consequently, since we are unable to assign certainty to anything, the best we can do is to go with those things that seem fairly certain. If the vast majority of climate scientists contend that climate change is real, it would seem smart to act and behave as If this was a certainty -- at least as far as public policy is concerned.
If anyone personally doesn't buy in to this less than certain conclusion, fine. Don't buy into it. But your uncertainty over the perceived certainty of something shouldn't leave everyone else in the lurch, if the perceived certainty turns out to be a facsimile of what we refer to as truth.
i don't agree with the argument. after all a majority of scientists thought the earth was flat at some point.
ReplyDeletehowever it seems silly to waste all the effort trying to prove that climate change caused by humans exists or doesn't exist. the fact is that the climate is changing. proving that humans did it is near impossible! however we do know that pollution is detrimental to the environment whether or not it is causing climate change! so shouldn't we be focusing our efforts on getting rid of pollution and other non-environmental practices anyway, or at the very least lessening their impact?
Our estimated time of arrival, was very late in the game.
ReplyDeleteOur estimated time of departure will be very early in the game.
It will have to continue else where.
Our main objective should be to take the least amount of baggage for our continued journey.
The only constant is change.
ReplyDelete