My objective for the class is get you to look at issues like global warming critically, not just as a knee-jerk conservative or liberal response to the politics. That pretty much all the scientists who are expert in the that area of science believe in it is worth serious consideration. That the opponents are generally (not all, but most) flat-earthers in many other ways is also important to think about.
On the other hand, there are examples of politicized science – mostly medical science – where the leading scientists were wrong. Not because they were corrupt or even making money on the issue, but because they all shared the same biases from their training. One example that I worked on was the failure of the public health community to accept standard disease control measures for HIV/AIDS. We went 20 years before we corrected that mistake. (Background) As for long term policy failures, just look at the ineffectiveness and unintended consequences of the war on drugs.
Whether you believe in global warming is not important, it is whether you really make up your own mind based on the best evidence that is out there. The issue is keeping your mind open – the answer to this is not yes or no, but what are the odds? It is certainly true that the earth is warming – how bad will it be without regard to whether man is responsible? If you run an insurance company or are planning to locate a major business in a coastal area, you would be a fool to just assume there is no chance of global warming. You would want to hedge your bets in underwriting decisions or where you put your business. You might build near the coast, but you would want to think about insurance options.
LA coastal subsidence is as controversial in south LA as global warming, but it is absolutely true. Not only based on Prof. Dokka’s data but on common sense if you really think about what you are seeing at the edge of the coast. For us, that is the issue we need to convince people about. If LA realistically confronts subsidence by accepting that it needs a soft coast, retreating coast, it will also be prepared to respond to global warming. All global warming will do is speed up the timeframe for coastal retreat. What we will not be ready for is the climate change, which will make sugar growing much more difficult, but that will happen slowly and we can adapt.
2005?! We were still thinking of how to address HIV in 2005?
I agree with Simone. I feel like if the US government seriously wanted to address the spread of AIDS it would have done so. We are a very intelligent nation. The virus was supposedly first discovered in the 1980s, why is there not much progress. Something smells fishy to me. And for the lack of trust from citizens receiving medical treatment from the feds… in dont blame people. The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment was not an isolated issue. It recently came to light that the US also infected Guatemalan prisons with the virus, too. Who knows what other truths will come to the light in the near future…I am even hesitant to get vaccinated. I dont put much past the US government.
This reminds me…check out the book that I lent to Prof. Richards “Dr. Mary’s Monkey.” You will see that the HIV/AIDS epidemic has it roots much closer to home than most people think. Very disturbing!
AIDS and syphilis aside (if only I had a nickel for every time I’ve said that)…
I don’t think the issue is always the closing of minds. Sure, some have decided that there is no global warming and will never be convinced even of that fact. But there are few definites in climate science. We do not know definitely what causes global warming and to what extent each of those causes adds to the “problem”–assuming it is not just an entirely natural phenomenon that should/will occur anyway.
Regardless of any of this debate, we have to plan for water rise and land loss. So let’s do that.
Since I do not want to turn this into an AIDS list, I will defer discussing the parallels between global warming and HIV until class.:-)