> Your comments show that you believe that the scientific method can and will identify
> and deal with all possibilities.
As a practitioner I'd be the first to admit that the science we're served can be imperfect. It is delivered by imperfect people, and in any case any release of 'science' is provisional. It fits only the conditions described by the scientist, and few scientists really can succinctly and accurately describe all the salient features of their methodology, so science is always to some extent wooly.
Science is a process, and that process leads to (sometimes erratically) ever more correct views of the world. Something as straightforward as effects of a pesticide are truly straightforward to study. Worried about sub-lethal effects? Sure, with enough of an incentive and with near infinite funding, studies can be designed that satisfy all reasonable people. The unreasonable people just have to be left behind. Of course, funding is never infinite and realistic proxies have to be found for real life.
Where science really gets into difficulties is when it starts to address issues that are dear to the hearts of people. Here, the hunches Allen mentioned earlier are not helpful and valuable, they are blinkers that stop the improvement and spread of knowledge in its tracks. If science demands a paradigm shift - that sea-change in thinking - and the implications of such a change are too difficult for some sections of the public to bear - then we have stalemate. A blunt refusal to 'think the unthinkable'. Very very rarely the unthinkable is a message that we all need to heed. If those unable to think the unthinkable have it wrong, we don't have enough time for those with closed minds to be replaced by an entire generation that never put those blinkers on.
I don't believe that Al Gore ever 'proved' that CO2 precedes and causes global temperature rise. He pointed out that we are now well outside the envelopes of CO2 fluctuations over recent glacial and inter-glacial periods. He described the implications of this, and indicated the likely implications of what is happening to the atmosphere now. Jumping back to the time before photosynthetic organisms changed the climate of the planet it is very clear that high CO2 is linked to high global temperatures and that green (and blue-green, and red and brown) life on the planet changed global climate forever. Well, hopefully forever.
You can't pick and choose your science. It is either crackpot science and needs to be rejected, or it is part of the big picture. If it is part of the big picture, and in this case the great majority of the world's climatologists say it is, then you have to wake up and listen, even if you don't personally take to the politician bringing it to you.
So, Allen (who I greatly respect, and who has guided many of us through thorny issues such as the possible role of imidacloprid in bee losses):
> ... there is no proof of cause and effect. Reason alone would suggest that
> warming would release more C02 into the atmosphere from storage and from
> increased biological activity, not the reverse.
>
> I only mention this example to show that people believe whatever they need
> to believe.
*Proof* of cause and effect - like the tobacco companies said for many decades? Unfortunately reason also suggests that the scientists are right when they cite the extra Watts per sq metre trapped for every additional ppm of CO2, NO2 and CH3. And, unfortunately, yes, people are liable to believe just what they want to believe. That is why, in beekeeping as in life in general, it is absolutely essential that as many people as possible keep open minds and are willing to join in with those sea-changes when the evidence warrants it.
best wishes to all
Gavin
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
