Global Warming and The Garfield Assassination
As I write, the temperature outside is 109 degrees; it’s the third day of all-time record-breaking heat. Global Warming is obvious, the scientific consensus agrees, but we in America don’t. It’s not the first time…
CBS Sunday Morning did a wonderful piece on the assassination of Pres. John Garfield. An assassin shot him, but the doctors killed him:
American doctors at the time didn’t believe germs existed at all. And according to Dr. Jeffrey Reznick of the National Library of Medicine, they rejected the use of antiseptics pioneered by British surgeon Joseph Lister, for whom Listerine would later be named
“Lister, an Englishman, embraced this theory in the early 1860s,” said Reznick. “American doctors did not believe in the Listerian Theory because they subscribed to the miasma theory, the fact that bad air caused disease and illness, not germs. They didn’t believe in germs – germs you couldn’t see.” …
“So President Garfield didn’t have to die,” said Dr. Reznick. “President Garfield died because of what his doctors did to him, and what his doctors DIDN’T do to him.”
Agree with me or not on the global warming swipe, the piece is well worth reading.
Share This
The use of partisan tactics has damaged the public understanding of climate change. For example, while blaming a heat wave or other weather event on climate change helps “sell” the idea to the public, the fact is that climate change simply can’t be linked to any one weather event. The quote above, while not explicitly linking the two, strongly implies the connection by having one statement follow the other. This keeps backfiring. After all, if people accept this statement, then they will, say the next winter, accept a statement like “The low last night was -5 F. The proponents of global warming keep pushing their flawed theories”.
Or, to put it another way, if one side shortcuts the science to sell a position, it will (no matter how right they are) validate the other side to shortcut the science to sell their position.
Things like this could give a person a real ulcer
Global warming doesn’t care whether we understand it or accept it. It doesn’t even care what party you’re in. Nor does it care if we try to do anything about it. It just IS. Our reaction to it is an IQ test for the species though. Heck, even countries a lot less sophisticated than the US grasp what is happening. China certainly does (for ex.). Our collective attitude about it is kind of a national embarrassment if you ask me. Partisanship is no excuse for stupidity.
Bill Nye:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/02/bill-nye-to-cnn-the-two-sides-arent-equal-on-climate-change/
I respect Bill Nye. But I think he is making a mistake there. Climate is a long term change with temporary swings back and forth. It has be argued looking at the long term. Temporary swings back and forth will provide “fuel” for both sides and, to the degree one side uses single incidents they validate the other side. I don’t know how many conservative blogs I saw mocking the fact that extreme cold and snow caused problems at one climate change meeting.
I do kinda agree that both sides aren’t equal since, unlike most politics (since you have the use of the scientific method), I think you can systematically show that the Earth is warming. (And, in fact, even well informed critics don’t generally challenge the call for government policy on that point). OTOH, if the complaint about equal coverage is that we should try and convince the public by having them only hear one side more than the other, I think that is probably a mistake also. It will only fuel conspiracy charges. You just have to tackle the issue head on. What you really need to do is find a way to get the time to answer the claims Earth isn’t warming.
I also think it was mistake to allow the issue to be “captured” by one partisan side. While I’m sure some partisan Democrats won’t believe this, I don’t think most Republicans want to destroy their children’s futures. But the Democrats move to this issue first and, as a partisan party, use it not only to push the actual issue, but also use it to win partisan advantage. That almost inevitably lead to Republicans seeing this as something to “fight back” about.