Science can only be validated by political review

Since you say my ideas are too +whatever … you better pull out the big brain for my answer to your question … because I’m asking you a question.

First, here’s the latest information about bird flu: WHO (World Health Organization) said yesterday that enough time has passed that the human-to-human transfer of the virus seems unlikely. … so it was close but no banana for the pandemic.

But keep in mind how viruses work:  Quoting here; ‘If a human cell is simultaneously infected by an [ordinary-human-virus] plus an avian virus, a combination of their RNA molecules may result in a progeny virus with novel properties. This is called an antigenic shift and may lead to a pandemy.’ Interestingly one could argue that this is a triggering mechanism for both disease and evolution, which would make virus-spread a necessary component of life.

However the pandemic hasn’t happened, and therefore all science is debunked … if I understand your position clearly.

 … but it could easily have mutated and possibly turned our Republican economy into a panic. So why wasn’t George discussing our preparedness? That was the only question I asked. Why not talk about science and preparedness with the public?

Let’s move on to global warming. I know you haven’t seen the Gore movie, nor read any scientific information about the issue … and like most Republicans, you can walk out on the back porch and see the glaciers are not melting.

You pose a typical Republican response to global warming, and this is what is constantly flowing over the internet from everyday folks, especially Exxon … who announced last week that if the polar ice caps melt, it would make it easier to drill for oil in the extreme north. I guess they said it to keep their stock-price pumped up, but they must be worried about some level of truth to global warming, otherwise they would never make a comment.

The day after the Gore movie was release, George Will, the stalwart Republican pundit wrote a column that essentially said ‘if Gore couldn’t get elected, then global warming doesn’t exist.’ Wow, here is a fine mind who wants people to think science can only be validated by political review.

I have heard others claim that global warming is caused by increased sun activity, and therefore has nothing to do with man-made hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.

Other people have said that Mars is undergoing a warming too, exactly like Earth; therefore the whole thing is beyond our control.

Several articles have appeared that cite two or three ‘scientific facts’ and then dismiss global warming as an imaginary gnome dreamed up by liberal scientists.
 
Over and over, article after article, here they come … all manner of public writing that wants to spin the issue of global warming and wants it to disappear from the public consciousness. 

You, on the other hand, have innovated a new Republican twist and claim that if the bird flu pandemic didn’t happen, then global warming isn’t happening.

Gore said in his movie that 100% of the scientists agree global warming is happening. And all it means is that the glaciers and polar ice-caps and permafrost are melting. And theses bodies of ice are melting and satellites show that snow-fall areas and glaciations have decreased by 15% since the 1960’s. At the same time carbon dioxide has increased in the atmosphere.

Something is happening. And scientists call it global warming, but we can simplify the whole issue and call it ‘ice melt.’

What are the reasons or consequences for ‘ice melt’ … nobody is certain, but the ice is melting.

Do you think we as a people should investigate the problem? And if you disagree, I have to ask why, since our entire economy is built on the backbone of scientific achievement.

Gore points out in his movie that we faced the problem of ozone depletion, and changed the CFC’s in our refrigerants and aerosol cans, and now the ozone layer has been restored. He points out that we have the power to change things.

So why is there such a push by Republicans to say ‘ice melt’ is beyond our ability to understand and therefore we should ignore it?
Instead of leading the people, our Senate passed legislation: Byrd-Hagel was approved 95-0. It says, in part: That it is the sense of the Senate that-- (1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would—
Instead of leading on the issue, our national leadership is suppressing scientific efforts to determine the cause of ‘ice melt’:  A $200m mission designed to measure the amount of moisture in the soil has been scrapped, as has the launch of the $100m The Deep Space Climate Observatory, even though it has already been built. Both projects would have provided data for scientists trying to understand the mechanisms involved in climate change.

I think the important question to ask yourself, is not whether pandemics happen or whether ‘ice melt’ is happening … the question to ask yourself is ‘who is influencing your opinion?’

Gore says 100% of scientists agree ‘ice melt’ is happening. He also says that in opposition to these findings, 57% of the news stories and editorials say ‘ice melt’ doesn’t exist. So who is buying the advertising to convince you that nothing-is-changing, and all-is-well? Do you think it’s the industries that sell you homes and cars and products?

I’m not being a pessimist here. I’m asking a legitimate question: who is buying an opinion that refutes what scientists are reporting?

****In the ultimate unveiling of Republican logic: our government is denying ‘ice melt,’ and reusing to engage in dialog with scientists and has edited the release of information from NASA scientists who are talking about global warming …. yet yet yet … the Republican fools are demanding that science scores must be higher for our kids in school. And believe me, Holly and I are on the firing line in education, as the local education board said yesterday, that ‘personnel changes’ should be considered so ‘science scores’ can exceed average state results. And I can quote the article, but Holly read it too ... and you can ask her.

Who is buying public opinion that shapes a ‘skewed’ reality that the leaders want you to believe? This is especially disturbing to have our leaders skip around responsibility and truth when they are demanding higher integrity and accountability from every underling in this nation.

Post script:
No matter what your answer: the wheel has already turned on global warming. Three weeks ago the Western Governors conference released a statement that we should investigate global warming. And of course Bush has no comment since he hadn't read the text. Additionally, corporations like Exxon are measuring how global warming might impact their companies. And the insurance industry had a major sit-down two months ago and is raising reinsurance rates based on predictions of higher tides and stronger storms. There is a resurgence of atomic power plants. And finally, the public is eagerly awaiting the arrival of 'cheap, clean-burning ethanol fuel' … despite the ‘lie’ that such fuel will be widely available without stripping the nation’s vegetation or quadrupling food prices.

YES… prices are going up and things are changing because of scientific forecasts … and what does that mean? Ultimately it means we will use scientific knowledge to investigate the cause of ice melt. And that’s a positive thing, even if the glaciers are melting because gamma rays are beaming out from the heads of Republicans.

Gene Haynes