Last week, the United Nations concluded a major conference on the environment, in which virtually every member other than the United States was frustrated with the American refusal to include specific goals for further negotiations.
The response from this corner was silence. Not because I do not care about global warming, polar bears, keeping the buckeye tree in Ohio, or the diversity of life in Little Darby Creek.
The reason is that I do not know who to trust for accurate science. The issue of global warming is so highly politicized, even within the scientific community, that I don’t know for a fact that the trend is irreversible, or to what extent human activity is involved. During the UN conference, 100 British and Canadian scientists protested the assumptions used in the UN report. We all want to do the right thing, and that should include continued support for renewable energy and practical measures that will help clean the air and water and protect animal habitat. Beyond that, however, how much is within our control? The answers to these questions have major policy implications for every nation.
I really don’t know what they are, but I do know that we need answers from scientists who are looking for the truth, and journalists who are able to report their findings objectively.
The truth may be inconvenient, but the lack of it is dangerous; either because we neglect to prepare for a catastrophe, or because we waste valuable resources following Chicken Little prophecies of the sky falling.
I’d like to have truth on my side – if I can find it.
No comments:
Post a Comment