"Most journalists and pundits have limited knowledge of science; as a result, they tend to pick whichever science best suits their political prejudices. Both science and journalism deserve better. Perhaps we can start by remembering that an ideological crusade can be as strong an inducement to bend the truth as the profit motive."
Amen.A Republican friend of ours up in DC called me a "dirty hippie" when I started jokingly blaming weather patterns on Al Gore ("Al Gore's f'n up the World!"). Once she realized I was teasing Al Gore, she backed off.. But the fact is, I think there is a great deal of truth to global warming, and think Al Gore is doing a bang up job bringing it to attention. He's just fun to tease. In this friends mind, I really should stand out as a "dirty hippie".. A capitalistic, government reducing, dirty hippie.
The kicker is, I'm willing to bet that this particular person comes from a liberal arts background, never has taken a science class of any substantial merit and has never looked into understanding even the basic premise of the theory of global warming.. The party line states its a farce, and a farce it will remain.
Technology has come a long, long way since Reagan ordered the solar panels off the roof. The economic argument continually holds less and less water. On the democrat side, they only promote scientific studies that back worst case scenarios. It's "politics of fear," only instead of terrorism, it's hurricanes.
What will it take to actually, seriously, look into this issue? And would either party be willing to admit that they were wrong even if we did? What would be so bad about increasing the automobile standards so that we aren't dead last in the entire world? Or maybe increasing appliance standards to energy star levels? These aren't suggestions to simply encourage a healthier environment, they're suggestions to reduce our energy use overall (and consequently dependence on oil). That fits both "sides" agendas, no?
