Remi Cornwall wrote:-
<<You don't mind my asking but are you an engineer or scientist? What have
you
done and have you done any research?>>
Oh, Remi you really have pushed my buttons now! I recognise the gentlemanly
tone of your request (you're a fellow Brit right?) but really...! Perhaps
you did not see that it was an undoubtedly highly qualified scientist from
the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution who came out with the "US
climate loonies" remarks. Sorry Remi, I think your attitude is part of the
problem. Did you never hear that "you don't need a weatherman to know which
way the wind blows"?
I have to extrapolate your views from your email, but, rest
assured, in around 33 years of being an environmentalist (before there were
any courses at colleges) I have encountered what appears to be your argument
many, many times. It is at heart a patronising one (despite your denial)
inasmuch it implies that you think your point of view and values outrank the
"non-qualified" in this subject.You are so totally wrong in your apparent
view that only people with qualifications as scientists or engineers are
qualified to talk about this particular matter and be believed. In fact, it
is the very heart of scientific philosophy that renders those who live and
decide issues by this code DISQUALIFIED from having any validity if they
think that it is a good method for making strategic policy decisions in this
area. It is their duty not to comment as science is a post-dictive subject.
Scientific predictions are only hypotheses and cannot be relied upon. As I
have explained so often to people like you, the whole danger of your
viewpoint is that one cannot conclusively prove that global warming is
happening/will happen without running the experiment i.e. letting us
continue to alter the global atmosphere and seeing what the ultimate result
is. The consequences of doing so CANNOT be predicted accurately - they may
resemble the results of computer modelling but then again, such models may,
in due course, prove to be totally inadequate as predictive tools. I can say
this as an absolute fact beyond the necessity of proof - it should be self
evident to a truly intelligent person and not just a highly trained one. If
some computer speculation suggests that the results may be catastrophic
while others say things will be fine, marginal or could be coped with, then
raw intelligence dictates that, as we are dealing with a global part of the
only life support system that we have, not only for humanity but all the
countless millions of other lifeforms we share the Planet with (upon many of
which we also depend), chances cannot be taken that the results will be
neutral, favourable or "acceptable". If there is even a small chance that
things could be well and truly screwed up, such a chance must not be taken.
It merely requires true intelligence to see this point. One cannot take the
chance that new technology will arrive, like the US cavalry on the brow of
the hill in the nick of time (but as you may know I have been following cold
fusion since the beginning, as it could be a great solution). It is the
scientists, engineers, politicians, business men etc who do not understand
this simple logic who are the problem. That is why I characterise those who
do not understand this logic as morons or insane or both. Perhaps I should
qualify that by saying instead "functionally moronic" or "functionally
insane". It certainly is the case that many of the stupidest, most dangerous
beliefs and opinions around come from those who feel secure that society has
awarded them a certificate (like the strawman in the Wizard of Oz who wanted
a brain). Robert Park continues to spout his opinions on cold fusion etc
which he undoubtedly feels superior enough to the common herd to do. He used
to have a bit at the bottom of his ""What's New" that said something like
"the opinions expressed here are the authors alone and not those of the
American Physical society (but they should be)". The root cause of the
problem is vanity - vanity of those qualified or experienced in one field
who come to believe that their "special quality" gives their viewpoint and
those of their similar peers, on matters outside their area, more gravitas
than they deserve. If a Professor comes out with a stupid, dangerous
assertion and out of the mouth of a babe and suckling comes intelligent
sense, who do you listen too?
Nick Palmer
Ex area coordinator for Jersey, Channel Islands, Friends of the Earth. Ex
recycling and climate change campaigner.
