Global Warming and Volatility

Yesterday's post, which was an excerpt of three bullet points about global warming from the Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, certainly set off some interesting comments. I appreciate everyone's civility in that exchange of ... I can't say ideas ... science beliefs might be the better term.

I think what I find more fascinating than anything else is how three little bullet points with no other details set off negative commentary that spoke as if they knew what the author's support for those points was ... without ever asking questions for further information or reading the book themselves to see if there was, perhaps, evidence that these people hadn't considered.

That, more than anything, showed me what ingrained beliefs we hold about these scientific theories. As I mentioned in my mini-review I know that stunned feeling at seeing "what everybody knows" challenged and I can empathize with the desire to do the best thing that motivates people on both sides.

Previously I was just going to post the provocative bullet points that lead each chapter (yes, I was "poking" to see what happened). However, I believe I will give a few more excerpts than I intended just to give a sample of where the author is coming from. I am not taking any of these theories up as causes to promote, although I do find the author's information to make sense in many cases. This is just because I found the information interesting and thought provoking. I am hoping that people will ask a few more questions and be a little inclined to consider the possibility that "what everybody knows" ain't necessarily so.

Think of health information and how often it changes. For example, I recently saw a study where scientists are now saying that the "glass a day" of wine may not be a good idea after all. This is after we have been told with surety that a glass a day is the way to good health and long life. And before that concept was promoted that we were told the sure way to health and long life was no alcohol at all. So I do not find it mind boggling that scientific theories about other disciplines could easily have led both scientists and the public astray.

If nothing else I certainly now appreciate the scientists who have gone on the record as having a different theory. It shows me how sure they must be of their theories to risk such ridicule from their peers. They are putting their professional reputations on the line. I am doing nothing more than risking becoming known as the "Flat Earth Catholic" or some other clever name.

The question is, are we open minded enough to explore the possibilities ... whether they turn up as dead ends or as valid theories?