For John, BLUF: Remember, Eugenics was an approved scientific theory a hundred years ago, and look where that ended up—the Holocaust. Nothing to see here; just move along.
…then those with an opposing view become apostates.
Over at Neo-NeoCon the Blogger, who hides behind an apple, takes on the Controversy over at The Old Gray Lady over having a new columnist who looks at the other side of things like Global Warming.
The Times has been excoriated by thousands of readers. Here is the Blog lede plus two:
That’s especially true if the topic is one with very high stakes, such as AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Think about it this way: if a person is—(a) convinced that AGW has been proven beyond any doubt (b) threatens life as we know it all over the globe; and (c) can be halted and/or decreased by measures we understand and can control if only we had the will to implement them—then if follow that anyone who disagrees is a person who is endangering life on earth.Hat tip to the InstaPundit, where Author Sarah Hoyt blogged about this.
Science, of course, is not a religion, and the history of science is littered with theories that have been considered proven and then are disproven. So scientists must remain skeptical and open to any evidence that would challenge their theories and their findin gs. That’s difficult enough to do when the topic is an abstract one with few practical applications. But when a topic is highly highly politicized (as with AGW), the difficulty increases exponentially and the public also becomes very much involved.
Which brings us to an article Bret Stephens wrote in his new venue, the NY Times. It was really a rather modest suggestion that people listen to both sides of the issue—not so much on AGW (which he himself seems to believe is true) as on whether we know enough to accurately predict the future of AGW and/or to fix the problems it may cause.
Regards — Cliff