It’s slightly cloudy — unusual for sunny Florida. The air smells of the ocean, alive with birds: gulls, pelicans, hawks. On a wooden platform, a group of people of all ages and colors is squinting fixedly at a point on the horizon about two kilometers away, where a gantry holds a slim rocket that balances a tiny load on its nose. A level voice announces from the loudspeakers: “The T minus ten holding period is over. We’re going forward.”
The people break into wild cheers, then fall eerily silent. Curious children are shushed and told to look there, there; final adjustments are made to cameras and binoculars. The minus ten holding period is the last chance to abort. The weather was such that until this moment the decision to launch could change.
Like heartbeats, the announcements come. “T minus five… minus three… minus one… T minus thirty seconds… minus twenty seconds… minus ten seconds… Now you can hear a pin drop. “Nine… eight.. seven… six… five… four…. three… two…” All the spectators shiver, holding their breath.
A beautiful essay by Athena of Star Ship Reckless, Astrogator’s Logs
Some words from Freeman Dyson:
In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right. It may—or may not—be that the present is such a time. The great virtue of Nordhaus’s economic analysis is that it remains valid whether the majority view is right or wrong. Nordhaus’s optimum policy takes both possibilities into account. Zedillo in his introduction summarizes the arguments of each contributor in turn. He maintains the neutrality appropriate to a conference chairman, and gives equal space to Lindzen and to Rahmstorf. He betrays his own opinion only in a single sentence with a short parenthesis: “Climate change may not be the world’s most pressing problem (as I am convinced it is not), but it could still prove to be the most complex challenge the world has ever faced.”
The last five chapters of the Zedillo book are by writers from five of the countries most concerned with the politics of global warming: Russia, Britain, Canada, India, and China. Each of the five authors has been responsible for giving technical advice to a government, and each of them gives us a statement of that government’s policy. Howard Dalton, spokesman for the British government, is the most dogmatic. His final paragraph begins:
It is the firm view of the United Kingdom that climate change constitutes a major threat to the environment and human society, that urgent action is needed now across the world to avert that threat, and that the developed world needs to show leadership in tackling climate change.
The United Kingdom has made up its mind and takes the view that any individuals who disagree with government policy should be ignored. This dogmatic tone is also adopted by the Royal Society, the British equivalent of the US National Academy of Sciences. The Royal Society recently published a pamphlet addressed to the general public with the title “Climate Change Controversies: A Simple Guide.” The pamphlet says:
This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming.
In other words, if you disagree with the majority opinion about global warming, you are an enemy of science. The authors of the pamphlet appear to have forgotten the ancient motto of the Royal Society, Nullius in Verba, which means, “Nobody’s word is final.”
Yes, the famous physicist Freeman Dyson, “that one”, contents that global warming isn’t purely human driven and that the scientific community is dogmatic on the subject by blasting opponents. Dyson’s reviews of these books; ‘A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies, by William Nordhaus, Yale University Press.’ and ‘Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto, edited by Ernesto Zedillo, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization/Brookings Institution Press’, questions whether or not the meme is economically driven.
Now where have I read that before, hmmm…? *visions of a certain evangalistic gear jammer driving his tractor-trailer back and forth over the carcasses of a recent Nobel Prize recipient and a person with the same name as a motorcycle…*
UPDATE: George Dvorsky, a noted transhumanist and Singularity proponent blogs on this also: http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2008/05/freeman-dyson-on-religion-of.html
Amazing, simply amazing. Dogma permiates discourse in all areas of discussion, science, religion, whatever. And denial flies through the air like farmers spreading liquid cow sh*t.
F*cking amazing. 😕