There are some scientists who have publicly stated that global warming is a hoax. Or, I should say, they dispute the idea that the climate change the planet is undoubtedly experiencing is a result of human activity. (I don't believe that those same scientists challenge the plentiful evidence that average temperatures on Earth have been rising, especially most recently.) When playing poker, my friend Dave sometimes says, "The cards don't lie," which means when we throw our hands down there will be one winner and that will be clear to everyone. Applying that premise to this issue, any and all scientists should always be welcome to conduct, interpret and present their research on climate change, as on any other issue. I don't advocate threatening -- or even shouting down -- those who publicly disagree with the majority, whether we're talking science or any other matter. Facts are facts, and they don't lie -- though they can be misinterpreted, and it often takes years of studies and piles of information to clearly see the truth.I don't, however, believe that we should forego attempts at reining in greenhouse gases that are likely the source of most climate change. The vast majority of the science is probably correct, and human beings have almost certainly contributed to the rising temperatures. It is reckless to ignore this and almost as reckless to adopt a position that, because there is a small segment of the scientific community that disagrees, we should wait to enact public policy remedies for this problem. It's possible that we are too late to reverse the course we are on -- a course that may have catastrophic consequences -- and if we wait to convert those scientists who disagree we will definitely doom future generations to a calamity not of their making.Friends of mine who disagree should read an article called "The Denialists" in the March 12 issue of The New Yorker. The piece, by Michael Specter, speaks not of global warming, but of H.I.V., which a small number of scientists, led by molecular biologist Peter Duesberg, believe is unrelated to AIDS. This idea has taken hold in sub-Saharan Africa, where an estimated 20 million people have died from the disease and millions more are infected. Many in the region refuse to take Western medicines and, instead, put all of their faith in local healers, who mix concoctions of herbs. Meanwhile, in the West, AIDS is no longer an immediate death sentence.Would those who advocate putting the brakes on attempts to limit climate change apply the same standard to treatment for AIDS? Should we wait until all of the possible science is in before we administer antiretroviral drugs -- the only treatment that has worked so far -- to patients infected with H.I.V.? I don't think that anyone would want to adopt that policy and to risk the lives of millions, and it seems that we should follow the same course on one of the other great issues of our time: global warming.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น