Global warming needs fair debate
Adrian Martinez
Issue date: 4/23/07 Section: Opinions
Imagine you begin to feel ill one day. You make an appointment with a doctor and make your way to his or her office. You wait in the waiting room like everyone else, fill out those annoying forms and try to guess the ailments of those around you in a morbidly entertaining way.
Finally, you get to go into the doctor's office. Sitting there with your pants around your ankles, the doctor examines you for clues as to what might be wrong. After a lengthy invasion of your personal space - for your own good, of course - the doctor solemnly tells you what anyone would be frightened to hear. It's cancer, it's incurable and you've got six months to live.
What would your first reaction be? Would you start digging your own grave and go size yourself for a casket? Surely not. You ask for a second opinion. You always seek out another doctor or expert just to make sure. What if the first doctor was mistaken? What if he or she was just off his or her game? What if the doctor is just crazy, or worse, an environmentalist?
OK, maybe that was uncalled for.
Unfortunately, many governments in this world don't feel it's necessary to seek out a second opinion, even if that opinion is banging down their doors. After all, who could argue with an intimidating group such as the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Even the acronym IPCC is enough to make oil executives tremble in their $1,000 boots.
But in all seriousness, the whole situation has become one of the most brilliant displays of hypocrisy I have ever seen. During the 17th century, great thinkers like Galileo Galilei were persecuted and silenced by religious entities such as the Catholic Church for their promotion of then-unpopular ideas. Now, scientists are silencing other scientists for going against the grain.
While many governments have began the rush to regulate their nations' greenhouse gas emissions, many scientists are complaining they're finding it difficult to be heard by governments if they maintain the opinion global warming is not being caused by humans - or even if they have doubts about the catastrophic effects the IPCC has predicted.
Finally, you get to go into the doctor's office. Sitting there with your pants around your ankles, the doctor examines you for clues as to what might be wrong. After a lengthy invasion of your personal space - for your own good, of course - the doctor solemnly tells you what anyone would be frightened to hear. It's cancer, it's incurable and you've got six months to live.
What would your first reaction be? Would you start digging your own grave and go size yourself for a casket? Surely not. You ask for a second opinion. You always seek out another doctor or expert just to make sure. What if the first doctor was mistaken? What if he or she was just off his or her game? What if the doctor is just crazy, or worse, an environmentalist?
OK, maybe that was uncalled for.
Unfortunately, many governments in this world don't feel it's necessary to seek out a second opinion, even if that opinion is banging down their doors. After all, who could argue with an intimidating group such as the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Even the acronym IPCC is enough to make oil executives tremble in their $1,000 boots.
But in all seriousness, the whole situation has become one of the most brilliant displays of hypocrisy I have ever seen. During the 17th century, great thinkers like Galileo Galilei were persecuted and silenced by religious entities such as the Catholic Church for their promotion of then-unpopular ideas. Now, scientists are silencing other scientists for going against the grain.
While many governments have began the rush to regulate their nations' greenhouse gas emissions, many scientists are complaining they're finding it difficult to be heard by governments if they maintain the opinion global warming is not being caused by humans - or even if they have doubts about the catastrophic effects the IPCC has predicted.
Disclaimer:
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of The Daily Toreador, the department of Student Media or Texas Tech University. Student editors have the authority to make all online content decisions without censorship or advance approval and are solely responsible for the content of this Web site. None of the opinions expressed on this page are previewed by any university official. Any postings, SPAM or otherwise, considered by the editorial staff to be campaign endorsements for political candidates other than opinions of users attached to articles pertaining to election issues will be deleted immediately.
View the online policy here.
To report questionable content, send an email to dtonlineeditor@gmail.com
Viewing Comments 1 - 9 of 10
George Gant
posted 4/22/07 @ 10:58 PM CST
Adrian, you rambled on and on about all the scientists who want to give a "second opinion" but are being silenced by those scientists with an "agenda," namely that undesirable climate change is man made. (Continued…)
Sham On
posted 4/22/07 @ 11:23 PM CST
George Gant,
You make a valid argument, but you have not negated anything in this article. I'm sure you have reviewed all the information that you could acquire, but with an entire world of information about our atmosphere that is not yet fully understood, how can you have no doubts? And yes, there was only one scientist mentioned in this article, but that doesn't mean that he is the only one. (Continued…)
WAL
posted 4/23/07 @ 11:14 AM CST
I've seen heard, and researched both arguments on global warming and I have come to a scientific conclusion- scientists haven't concluded crap on this issue. (Continued…)
truth seeking
posted 4/23/07 @ 12:05 PM CST
Adrian,
I think you wrote a very good article, which many scientists, like myself, have been saying for awhile. Those who ask why are there not more articles contradicting the effects of global warming, or the cause, should try to get something published in a peer reviewed journal sometime. (Continued…)
Jinx
posted 4/23/07 @ 3:04 PM CST
Imagine you look out your window and see that the world is flat. So you ask a scientist and the scientist tells you it's round. He shows you photos from space and explains how gravity works but your still not quite sure because when you look out your window it still looks flat. (Continued…)
txsieloff
Dave
posted 4/23/07 @ 6:23 PM CST
The problem is, Adrian, none of the Global Warming fanatics want a fair debate because the issue really isn't "anti global warming" but rather "anti capitalism". (Continued…)
Chris
posted 4/23/07 @ 9:28 PM CST
Thank you for writing an article that poses the question that global warming is not occurring. This is something that I have looked into since Dr. Gilbert in the Economics Dept at Tech stated that in his opinion that it was NOT occurring. (Continued…)
JW
posted 4/24/07 @ 12:14 PM CST
Here is my analysis for anyone who cares. The far left wants us to think that the world is doomed and for reasons I cannot understand at this point (I am sure the far right will explain why this is). (Continued…)
Chris
posted 4/24/07 @ 12:22 PM CST
Very nice post JW, I believe that you summed up the majority of "issues" that the media brings us on a daily basis. They are in the business to sell news, sell their stations, and sell themselves. (Continued…)
Post a Comment