I always read with interest debates about climate warming (or change).

It is a fallacy to say that because someone has a vested interest in the
outcome of an argument that the argument they put forth is wrong.  They
could be right--you just wouldn't like it.  It would be proper to be
suspicious of their motives.  That means if the opponents of an argument
are making up or misusing "facts" then this has to be exposed or
explained.  Thus, one must propose a counter argument, not a motive for
distorting an argument.

I am always disappointed in scientists or those that use 'science' to
settle ethical delimmas.  In the case of global warming, the public
understands that the process of warming the atmosphere makes it possible
to humans to enhance the atmosphere's ability to get warmer.  That however
does not mean that humans are duty bound not to do so.  Humans just may be
responsible.  If humans, in spite of the possibility of changing climate
wish to continue spewing radiative gases into the atmosphere then humans
are responsible for the effects that result, if they wish to stop it then
they will choose to stop it.

There are other ways to address the problem.  Make arguments for social,
economic and cultural changes that may induce the changes you desire.
Don't expect people to just suddenly say "Yeah, those scientists are so
wise that we should act on what they know".  There is a story a friend of
mine uses from Knud Rasmusans work with the eskimos.  Two Natives are
aruging over the number of hairs present on their respective pelts: one is
a caribou and the other is a wolf pelt.  Each one claims that his pelt has
the most hairs.  The argument becomes heated and they finally decide that
they will have to count the hairs in order to decide who is right.  They
count and count unitl each starves to death.  Thus, just because you know
how to count the hairs this knowledge cannot tell you the wisdom of doing
so.

By extension, just because you have identified a potential problem doesn't
mean that that knowledge gives you the wisdom to provide answers to its
solution.  Cutting down or eliminating radiative gas pollution is not the
sole province of science or scientists.  I would suggest that the
arrogance of assuming so hurts the very interests that scientists work
for.

Ed Barker



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%