"Leeeeeet theeeeeeere be peeeeeeeeace on Eeeeeearth and let it begin with Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr..." Here's Albert as he officially wants the world to know him. Here's a more happy Al Gore. Well as you all undoubtedly know by now, Mr. Al Gore has won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for "creating the internet...[and taking] the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives...".
Alright, that was the obvious dig on Sir Albert. In reality he and the International Panel on [Global Panic and] Climate Change (IPCC) get to split the US $1M payout for "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change". Now that he's a legitimate Nobel Laurette, I finally find myself vindicated in asking myself in difficult and trying times "WWAGD"- What Would Al Gore Do?
So it is appropriate at this point to admit that (regardless of my opening satire) I am like Sweden when it comes to Al Gore...just about as neutral as they come. I honestly find the man fascinating. I really don't know much about him as a person. I really don't know much about his cause(s). I DO know that he is NOT a scientist. Actually, I think he's more the antithesis of a scientist- a businessman...and not just a normal businessman, a politically motivated businessman. Maybe he really does have an amazingly super-human altruistic care for our planet and has honestly devoted his life to reducing the amount of carbon (and other "harmful" agents) in the world around us. I'm not one, however, to join movements simply because they're convincing and popular.
Anyone who frequently solves math problems knows that one of the best techniques to get a feel for an answer is to go to extremes (limits). So in this case it's not difficult to remember some other convincing and popular ideas from our past...Communism, National Socialist German Workers Party, Democracy, and maybe more applicable DDT. These are probably poor examples, but I think they illustrate my point in that movements aren't necessarily good ideas simply because someone tells you they are...although Democracy did turn out pretty darn well (except maybe in Iraq.....).
I've listened to the arguments for both sides of the "global warming" issue, and I've been impressed with both the caliber of people and level of logical persuasion that both sides have presented. It's refreshing to see a controversial topic being debated mainly with logos without so much of pathos and ethos which is so common among most political infomercials and agenda-pushing materials (see "Bowling for Columbine", "Fahrenheit 911", "The Wal-Mart Movie", and "Under the Banner of Heaven").
So after all the research I've done on the so-called impending global crisis (which I'm sure is not much by some peoples' standards) I've come to the conclusion that I don't know what to think about it. The arguments on both sides are terribly convincing. The leaders on both sides are well respected and highly educated. In an ideal world I would like to simply sit down and talk openly and honestly with members from both factions and just get the stone-cold facts...no propaganda, no misleading or incomplete or unweighted information, no exaggeration. Even then I still probably wouldn't know. Whatever the world deems to be truth, however, I'm afraid we're heading towards another DDT-type mega-decision which will impact the lives of millions and future generations. Like many out there, I AM sure the Earth is warming...I'm just not sure it's because of us or whether there is anything we can do about it or whether it is simply a cyclic pattern of the Earth's natural course.
(DDT note: DDT, as the pesticide is now infamously known, was a miracle bug killer upon its inception, and the inventor Paul Muller actually won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine directly because of it. Then in 1962, Rachael Carson [the 60's version of Al Gore] published a book Silent Spring bringing to light the possible effects this chemical could have on humans and animals, including cancer and birth defects. Unfortunately, before any decisive agreement could be made within the scientific community, DDT became black labeled as the next Agent Orange and since then has been outlawed in most countries around the world. As a result, countless people have suffered from bug-born diseases like Malaria simply because Rachael Carson thought there could be a chance that DDT would be harmful, and it's STILL up for debate in the scientific community if it's really harmful. In retrospect, even if DDT is harmful, which is worse- DDT effects or Malaria? Is the global warming issue one we're going to look back on in 15 years after we've spent billions and billions of dollars on it and say to ourselves "What were we thinking?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Enjoy your blog, and look forward to more! About our most recent Nobel laureate, you definitely got a few things right: "the antithesis of a scientist" and "politically motivated businessman" - right on the money.
But to suggest that Al Gore might possibly have "super-human altruistic care for our planet" or be "honestly devoted to reducing the amount of carbon dioxide and other harmful agents in the world around us" is ludicrous! We're not talking about Ghandi, Mother Teresa, or Martin Luther King, Jr. here - who also won the Nobel Peace Prize (WHO WALKED THE WALK, NOT JUST TALKED THE TALK!!!) I think the whole idea of "Peace Prize" has been devalued with this year's award, just based on it's recipient. Al Gore, consistently, and arrogantly, lives in blatantly energy wasteful home(s), flies around the world in a hugely, outdated energy wasteful jet, (while lecturing the rest of us walk or bike or use public transportation to work...), & still uses private limousines. I DO NOT SEE THE MAN SACRIFICING ONE PERSONAL ITEM IN HIS LIFE TO INDICATE HIS COMMITTMENT TO THIS "CAUSE" HE IS SO "DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT"!!! I judge my heroes based on their actions, not on their pontifications. But I respect your keeping an open mind on the subject.
Look forward to your next entry!
Interesting post Dan. One benefit of studying science and engineering is that it develops critical thinking skills - including approaches to problem solving that typically rely on following a method to reach a conclusion. You have a theory and you test it. Then you get an answer. It works to a point - but sometimes different tests give different results - yet most scientist don't like such conflict. When you mix in "public policy" and "societal values" you find even more issues fall within this gray space of uncertainty than appear black or white. Global warming might be one such issue, but I'll stick to your example of DDT for now. If you are a misquito, or - as it turns out - a bird, there is no debate over whether or not it is "harmful." DDT kills bugs. It also happens to bioaccumulate, leading to higher concentrations as you move up the food chain - and it happens to cause a decrease in the thickness of egg shells - which, if you're developing in an egg, can also be harmful. If you're a predatory bird, say a symbol of a great nation like the bald eagle, you're probably really not a fan of DDT - it bioaccumulates AND you're high up on the food chain AND you lay eggs. The funny thing about science though is that it's pretty hard to "prove" anything - ok, most people agree that the world isn't flat, but beyond that there's a lot of debate. It's inevitable in any complex system. Just ask the tobacco cmpany executives - through the 1990's they insisted there was no "proof" cigarette smoke caused cancer. In most cases no one has ever shown how cancer is "caused" - much less what causes it, so I guess you could say they were right - but then again, there were an awful lot of smokers dropping dead of lung cancer. What's a scientist to do in such uncertain times? Rachel Carson is credited with highlighting, if not creating, a different concept - one that questioned the terms on which many polluting businesses happily relied on. It's been called the "precautionary principle" and it sought to shift the scientific burden. Rather than having to prove a particular chemical caused serious environmental effects, it sought to require that the manufacturer prove it doesn't. Interestingly enough, most company's previously thrilled to say there was "no proof of harm" - didn't get very excited about having to show proof it isn't harmful. I'm not an advocate of the precautionary principle, strictly applied, but it did change a certain mind set and the direct benefit was the introduction of essentially all of the environmental regulations we have today - the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, RCRA - all of which were enacted in the 1970's. So maybe "global warming" will be the next "DDT" - it will always be hard to "prove" one way or the other - but if you're interested in the latest research on DDT just published this month, check out www.ehponline.org/members/2007/
10260/10260.pdf - the authors found a five-fold increase in breast cancer among women exposed to high levels of DDT as children. Maybe the "'60's version of Al Gore" was on to something afterall.
Post a Comment