View Single Post
Old 02-22-2012, 05:57 PM   #162 (permalink)
NachtRitter
NightKnight
 
NachtRitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Placerville, CA
Posts: 1,595

Helga - '00 Volkswagen Jetta TDI
TEAM VW AUDI Group
Diesel
90 day: 54.39 mpg (US)

Mathilde - '99 Volkswagen Eurovan Camper
90 day: 16.87 mpg (US)
Thanks: 315
Thanked 314 Times in 187 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEnemy View Post
For some shoe on the other foot thinking,

Say it turns out that we are responsible for very little global warming. With all the science says its true, we have to change everything, we are destroying the world...etc.

What will the world look like if environmental issues no longer carried any merit with the public?

What would the backlash be with the vast majority no longer believing science?

What would corporations be able to get away with environmentally then?
Sounds like what you are saying is the same as saying "what if we discovered that cigarette smoking actually does not cause cancer... just think how many people would smoke!!"

1) There are already a lot of people smoking that won't quit no matter what the science says (and there already a lot of corporations that are able to get away with being environmentally irresponsible), and

2) If cigarette smoking actually does not cause cancer, then so what if more people start smoking?? (and if being environmentally irresponsible has no impact, then so what if corporations get away with being more so??)

Basically such a scenario would make no difference. Those that believe in the scientific method today will continue to believe in it; those that don't understand the scientific method will still not understand it.

The data won't simply disappear in a 'magical poof' either... true scientists will be able to explain exactly why the data they had led them to a certain conclusion at one point, and why new data they received led them to a different conclusion later... thereby further bolstering the scientific method. That is the way it works... there is no 'magic' to it.

The problem with Y2K and Global Warming and other forecasts of 'doom & gloom' is that they can be blown completely out of proportion by the media... scientists (who may not be media savvy) are asked what is the worst that can happen and then that is taken as what will happen... and it is the scientist that is dragged through the mud for giving his/her honest answer...
  Reply With Quote