The science is still out on that ....

Unfortunately the earth is still flat if conservatives have their way.

*sighs*

Okay.

Science hasn't always been right.  (There I said it.)  In fact, science is based on a lot of theory because it's difficult to prove such things otherwise.

HOWEVER ...

Let's use some common sense about the basics as we know it.

If we stop embracing what science tells us - then we're only going to revert into a country that's lagging behind in science (oops, we are now.)  To deny that "the science is out" basically eliminates nearly everything around us from manufacturing, to computers, to the internet, to the clothing we wear or the houses we live in.  It negates your existence to view this entry.  Period.

We are all products of innovations made as a result of science.

Think on that when you want to utter "the science is still out on that."

Can scientists disagree?  Absolutely.  It wouldn't be a peer-reviewed setting if other scientists didn't test and refute their findings based on scientific fact.

Read that again.

It's not faith-based fact.
It's scientific fact.
It's not based on money.
It's not based on capitalism.
It's not based on some political leaning.
It's a basis of fact conceived through scientific principles that man has relied on from the beginning.

When you have scientists - saying: "this (insert thing here) is happening," then it should be at least considered.  At the very least the information should be examined and thoughtfully considered.  Even if it cuts against what you have known, science tests our ability to rationalize the process and conclusions reached by someone else's study.

Good scientists keep an open mind at all times and don't shut doors.

Will there be dissenters?  Yes.

Will there be disagreements? Yes.
Will there be conflicting opinions?  Yes.
Can scientists be bought to say whatever they're paid to say?  Yes.

Good scientists can dismiss the distractions and focus on the applicable science before them.  Good scientists won't be swayed by political opinions, personal beliefs or peer pressure.

The problem with science is that it is as easily corruptible as journalism has become.  With an infusion of politics - how can we expect scientists to remain professionally neutral when there's money, funding and careers at stake?

The narrative isn't: "does climate change exist or not."  The real narrative is: "how can we rely that our scientists are looking at the evidence without skewed lenses?"

It's perfectly okay to disagree on account of fact and evidence.  I'm all over that.  But I can prove to you that the earth is not flat because we have a curvature thing going on and we have some pictures from others that have (supposedly) been to space that can prove the earth is round.

If your science says the earth is still flat despite my evidence and if you're going to stand by that, then it's going to be impossible to agree.  Further: it is flawed to rely on an outdated, proven otherwise belief.  We are beyond that now.  Why keep with the ... "I don't know, the science may still be out on that" bit?

Let's skip forward a bit to climate change.

It's completely naive to believe that human existence has not affected the earth. 
- Species have died and have gone extinct because of us.  59 different species that once roamed the earth no longer do because of our interference in their existence.
- We have rerouted water supplies to suit our needs while changing the ecosystem that benefited from the original source water.
- We have plowed the earth to plant crops over existing land, plants and animals.  We have disrupted our ecosystem for the basis of pro-profit farming and ranching.
- We have cities that cover fields of earth with tar and asphalt so that we can park our vehicles.
- We poison and pollute the water supplies by dumping our refuse into streams and lakes to "tolerable levels" because manufacturers and factories don't have any other place to dump their shit after.
- We exhausted our earth's resources so that we're afforded luxuries and other "necessities" we have in our lives.  Our homes.  Our cars.  Our jobs.

We also live in a society that focuses on the capitalistic greed.  When there is an obvious and apparent financial motivation involved, then that should be figured into someone's prevailing opinion.  It's a belief process that has been woven into the politics and belief structure of our society.  When that belief or an intervening bias that interferes with the scientific analysis, then that opinion is tainted and can't be considered reliable.

There's the grand conspiracy by climate change deniers that there's a huge financial windfall involved with the climate change movement.  One tiny problem: there's no proof.  None.  If there's a conspiracy then show me the money.  Except - there is money at stake when it comes to the deniers as they are protecting their corporate interests.  They are afraid of the constraints and costs involved to protect the environment.  They stand to lose a lot of money if controls are put in place to impede or stop their toxic output.

Now .... to be fair.....

I will fully admit that there's a lot of pressure to "own up to climate change."

Problem: it impedes scientific opinion when the pendulum swings too far in the other direction so that the pressure and influence forces just to get another voice to sign on.

*sighs*

So.

If we can truly admit that there's an overt bias on the right and intense peer pressure from the left, then we can remove the defective opinions and rely on what we know and what we see.

We affect change to animals on this planet: true.
We affect change on the our environment when we lay down roads, when we erect buildings and houses: also true.
We affect change to our water supply by the contaminants we pollute them with: again, true.

So when the argument is made that "the science is out that," I shake my head and close my eyes to the helpless perspective of those that want to sit in denial than consider the evidence seriously without their Mr. Money Bags Monopoly blinders on.

Create an argument rooted in fact and evidence so that it's reliable, then we can have an honest discussion on climate change.

Then maybe we can start working on dismantling that whole "the science is still out with that" bullshit.

Imagine That: Americans want change....

It's a really bad indication for George Bush and his "legacy" when seventy-four percent (74%) of Americans think the nation needs a new direction.. Oh wow.. I thought the argument by every conservative out there is that America is just fine, we don't need any changes to the way things are ... those folks fall into the 24 percentile of those polled..

So the argument that things are just fine under Bush is gently floating away like a gentle feather on the wind.....

....a trend that I've been seeing for a very long time because Bush's incredibly thick-headed ambitions for his administration..

Now the conservatives are already rounding up the wagons (seeing that they have HUGE problems in 2008) and shaking out the same scare tactics that the Democrats want "bigger government" and "more tax money" -- which is very ironic considering we have a REPUBLICAN sitting President, supported by the very same conservatives who has expanded government, devalued the dollar while sustaining an endless overseas conflict while cutting taxes that continues to expand the national debt that continually out-paces the INTEREST on the money we've borrowed..

So - the scare tactic doesn't work anymore.. The Republicans can't even use the infamous "terrorism" monikers anymore because Americans are slow to learn -- but they are learning..

We're learning that Bush's "head in the sand" approach to the environment is much more detrimental than the "it's debatable" approach conservatives want us to believe.. I make mention of this - because NBC is starting a "Green Is Universal" awareness project that highlights the major environmental problems.. Fmr. Vice President and current Nobel laureate Al Gore will be starring on the Today show this week while the anchors report from the Arctic, the Equator and Antarctica this week..

Awareness.. Wow.. I would imagine that the Bush administration is leading the charge on this, right??

Um... No...

Because it's SCIENCE and SCIENCE needs to be thought about... Let's dismiss the fact that most scientists say: "it's a problem.." Let's dismiss the facts outlined in An Inconvenient Truth.. Let's dismiss science because it happens to disagree with your personally held belief of how the earth was created...

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

I kid you not...

So while it's convenient not to "offend religious fundamentalists" by opining the approximate age of the Grand Canyon we should remain scientifically illiterate because it's better to explain the forces of the universe by way of the Bible -- while completely dismissing the complete compilation of science in general.. Consider what we'd be missing out on:

- The light bulb
- The electric motor
- Computers
- TV
- Telephones
- Medical Centers
- Preventive medicine
- The automobile

....just to name a few inventions that began with a single scientific principle.. To dismiss the science of our existence is an extreme hypocritical stance given the historical reference of such inventions to begin with..

Change is *definitely* good when one does not self-identify as being in the 21st century.. I'm just glad Americans are slowly realizing that we're better off than the days of the pony and cart.. Bush was a mistake in the making, but he was electable because Americans wanted change following Clinton's mishaps in the White House.. Blame the Democrats for being unable to effectively challenge Bush in 2004 and for continuing to lead us down this very weary path...

And to the 24% that believe we're on the right road -- I urge you to relocate to some third-world country to understand what it means to "go back in time.." Maybe then you can truly appreciate the "path" of the "right road" from your experiences..

Conflicting interests

Scientist: White House Restricting Info On Climate

There's a significant departure of thought when someone mentions the word: "environment.."

Why??

Because it's become a political tug-of-war and most Americans have become numb to that fact.. There was a barrage of statements for global warning, against global warning and nothing really made much sense.. In fact, it's gotten so incredibly political - both sides of our political parties have continually tried to spin the reports to whatever policy they are trying to administer..

And that's where I have a problem..

...moreover, I'll definitely concede that it's not just a Bush problem - because Clinton apparently tried to get the leading expert in global warming to sign off on reports that made the issue of global warming "worse than it was.." Jack Hansen is that authority who refused to sign off on Clinton's version of the report.. Conversely, Rick Piltz co-wrote a report telling of the dangers of global warming and found his draft to be severely watered down and less threatening..

Officially, this administration is "looking into it.."

Officially, this administration pulled out of the Kyoto agreement which would have significantly slashed the emissions of gases into the atmosphere that is a contributor to global warming.. I say contributor because honestly - I do not know what is valid and invalid when it comes to figuring out if the whole "global warming" thing is a bunch of hooey or not.. I do know this though: it's serious enough for me to go: "maybe we should be taking a serious, candid look at this problem..."

But that's not happening..

In fact, it's 180 degrees differently because the man James Hansen reports to is Phil Cooney, the Chief of Staff of the Counsel on Environmental Quality.. Cooney, ironically: "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House,"

Read that again: he's a lobbyist at the head of the Counsel of Environmental Quality..

That's like putting a wolf in charge of security at a hen house....

Which raises the issue of politics getting involved in certain issues to begin with.. I don't approve of the cavalier attitude that this administration bestows in most of their decisions: intelligent design, unilaterally invoking privileges and other policies that are unconstitutional, re-writing laws and imposing their own moral beliefs on Americans when we should have the freedom of expression, the freedom of choice and the freedom of saying what we want to believe in...

Because this administration wants the media to show the "flowery" news - there is an under-reported story of a large ice shelf in Antarctica that is about to collapse sending world-wide water levels to exceed a depth of 1 meter.. That doesn't sound like a lot, but what Jack Hansen and his colleagues are reporting is that we're approaching critical periods in the process that will make it virtually impossible to fix later on.. It's not as though we're going to be able to "re-freeze the caps" and bring things back the way they were.. No.. We're incapable of doing that.. But we can slow that process and let nature make adjustments as she sees necessary..

I realize the counter-argument: that this would happen as it is.. Basically saying: nature is going to do it - regardless if we're driving our SUV's and sending greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.. Even if that's a valid position, the argument refuses to acknowledge that man has made a considerable contribution to the depletion of our atmosphere.. The political stance in this argument is to assure people that "we're not damaging the environment which is why we don't need standards to control emissions and cleaning the air and water around us.." There's a great deal of corporations that back this initiative because it they had to install controls that limit the emissions they can release -- then that cuts into their profit margin..

Profit versus habitation..

And this is why politics should have no place in "big picture" decisions like global warming.. It's a world concern, a world problem and it's going to take a world solution.. We rely on our scientists to give complete and verifiable conclusions on the world around us.. Whether it's medicine, food, water or the environment.. We need to make scientists to be able to exist without the boundaries of political ramifications or juxtaposed by the environmental or oil-industry lobbyists..

Hansen seems like he knows what he's talking about.. He's not swayed by public opinion or the politics that try to steer his report in one way or the other.. That seems to me - to be the most reliable source of information because he carries no bias.. When he can give his professional opinion, realizing it will be met with scorn and no support - I admire that.. Because he's trying to tell the truth - and we're all not listening because .... you guessed it, politics also has a way to control what we hear, what we read, and what we see.. Corporations now run our news programs, our radio stations and our print media.. And they have a vested interest too ... and if they start reporting things that do not follow along certain lines, then they no longer have jobs, they no longer can report, because they have been fired from their positions..

The good..

The bad..

The ugly..

We shouldn't be afraid to tell the truth - which means we should have the required safeguards to insure that people can report truthful, relevant, exact information to the populace.. Everything can't be seen through rose-colored glasses, nor should we always focus on the "happy news" like Bush wants us to see..

Sometimes we have to see the darkness so that we can make better choices to see the light..