2008 Woodie Awards
Believe in Global Warming?
Passion Should Never Enter the Argument
By Ricky Walker
9/10/07 - Opinion
Allow me to ask you a question: Do you believe in gravity? If you ask a typical CSM student this question, they will probably give you a weird look before they answer. This is not because they question the validity of gravity, but rather because it is an awkward question. Gravity is a scientific concept based on empirical data-there is no 'belief' to gravity. Evidence regarding gravity always seems to hold, so we conclude it to be valid.
Now consider global warming. Similar to gravity, it is also a scientific question. However, no one gives it a second glance when they hear the question; "Do you believe in global warming?" The problem is that it is no longer treated as the scientific issue that it is-it has been turned into a question of 'belief.' Regardless of its scientific validity, it remains certain that global warming is not and should not be treated as a 'belief' system.
However, it is treated this way. People are willing to criticize someone with a different viewpoint on the data and form what is almost becoming a modern-day Spanish Inquisition. To illustrate this, I present to you the name Michael Griffin. As an NPR story quotes, Michael Griffin is a NASA administrator and went before a House committee in March of 2007 to defend several space agency programs. In the course of the discussion, the issue of global warming came up and he questioned whether or not we can say the climate today is ideal, and questioned the urgency of climate change. He was chastised from the media and global warming advocates as a heretic for saying this, and was later pressured into apologizing for his statement. After all, quieting opposition is standard procedure in the scientific method, isn't it?
So the question is: why is it so commonly treated as a belief system? Why is it that if you express doubts about global warming, you are shunned by political activists as though you are an atheist going to hell? The true reason for this comes down to the expression; "If you want people to believe something, make it a religion."
Now consider global warming. Similar to gravity, it is also a scientific question. However, no one gives it a second glance when they hear the question; "Do you believe in global warming?" The problem is that it is no longer treated as the scientific issue that it is-it has been turned into a question of 'belief.' Regardless of its scientific validity, it remains certain that global warming is not and should not be treated as a 'belief' system.
However, it is treated this way. People are willing to criticize someone with a different viewpoint on the data and form what is almost becoming a modern-day Spanish Inquisition. To illustrate this, I present to you the name Michael Griffin. As an NPR story quotes, Michael Griffin is a NASA administrator and went before a House committee in March of 2007 to defend several space agency programs. In the course of the discussion, the issue of global warming came up and he questioned whether or not we can say the climate today is ideal, and questioned the urgency of climate change. He was chastised from the media and global warming advocates as a heretic for saying this, and was later pressured into apologizing for his statement. After all, quieting opposition is standard procedure in the scientific method, isn't it?
So the question is: why is it so commonly treated as a belief system? Why is it that if you express doubts about global warming, you are shunned by political activists as though you are an atheist going to hell? The true reason for this comes down to the expression; "If you want people to believe something, make it a religion."
Be the first to comment on this story