Thank you for your comment on the issue of global warming. It’s good to hear from you. I hope all is well back up north. As far as your discussion and links on this subject, I will concede now, after spending a considerable amount of my free time lately reading articles and essays on global warming, that yes, skeptics exist in the scientific community. There is not a consensus within the scientific community on the issue to the degree stated in An Inconvenient Truth, by Al Gore. However, I still feel very strongly from my own study of the subject (which by the way did not start with the reading of Gore’s book) that there is enough of a consensus to merit a change in my own impact to the environment. I will take a personal stance, and every individual must make their own choice respectively. I personally do not believe that the human consumption of fossil fuels cannot have drastic consequences, considering the incredible rate at which it has occurred within a very short time period of our planet. I do agree with you, and the essays you shared from Michael Crichton that science research must be conducted within certain parameters, and should be documented in whole to avoid bias. It is easy to realize that not all deductions that have been made within the scientific community have been correct within the history of mankind. But it is also very easy to realize that we have made incredible progress as well. There will always be skepticism, and there should be in order to prevent mistakes as much as is possible. But there will be progress alongside, whether one hypothesis prevails or another. To reach the conclusion that we as humankind cannot effectively determine and manage a problem because we have faced debate and setbacks is not something I can accept. Setbacks and debate are part of how we learn.
I also feel a strong need to comment on the political ties to the issue of global warming, which by your support of Crichton’s speeches, I have little doubt that you have considered thoroughly. We live in a country of unity, but also of intense division. I believe that since Al Gore was the author of a book on global warming, it cast immediate doubt in many individuals/groups as to the validity of any of the science claims made within his work. It would be no different if George Bush wrote the book. When a man has political ties (and thus very public allies and enemies), he is intensely judged no matter what he says. People already have their minds made up that a politician speaks truth, or is a fool. In addition to the basic political party affiliation issues, the debate over economic implications of the global warming problem cause wild amounts of debate. So once again, it is easy for me to see where people may already have their minds made up based on their desire to protect what they see as the most intelligent treatment of the economy. To some degree of truth, the data you find when searching for information regarding global warming depends on how politically/economically liberal or conservative your data source is. (I think we’re in agreement there already based on some of your comments/links). In my opinion is that politicians, economists, scientists, and consumers alike must be open minded enough to observe the world objectively, and at times challenge their own comfort and beliefs when data merits such actions, in order to sustain our race. And yes, as a Christian, I do believe that God plays the ultimate role in whether or not man succeeds in their ventures, but I also believe he has created in us the duty of being trying as hard as we can to be stewards of the situations presented to us. This means not giving up because at the signs of setbacks or debate. I can go on, but I suspect that will happen anyway in future blogs. Thank you again for your input. I am in no way wishing for my opinion alone to be heard. One cannot understand an issue without hearing all sides.
