It has come to the point where we must separate real science from pop “science.” There’s a big difference between scientists who perform scientific inquiry for the sake of knowledge and activists who propose an enormous restructuring of Western and Eastern civilizations. Real scientists use the scientific method and offer scientific critiques of accumulated data. A real scientist doesn’t need a majority consensus. Most people are not climate change deniers but are instead critical of the current climate change community which states essentially “you must give a lot of money to us scientists (activists) and ‘green’ industries in the forms of taxes and grants or the planet will die within 100 years.” And if things don’t come to fruition as predicted by these activists then have no fear all these changes to energy, economic, and political sectors would be for the greater good in the end. What could be wrong with that? People are further critical of science activism because it is constantly fear mongering. First it was a call to arms to save the poor polar bears whose population it turns out is not under any threat. That was soon followed by the notion that there would be more hurricanes like Katrina and natural disasters which again has yet to be realized. Nearly 40 years ago it was the fear of the coming ice age that was the real threat and now its global warming that’s the issue. Notice how the rhetoric has changed from global warming to climate change? It was done intentionally of course. So enough with calling people science deniers because they are merely critical of your activism- not the science. The earth very well could be in the process of changing permanently or simply going through a fluctuation. Either way I don’t understand this purveying ideal in the West that its man’s duty to actively manipulate nature.
Be the first to start the conversation!