Now on ScienceBlogs: In defense of hir in a male-dominated environment [Sciencewomen]

Seed Media Group

The Week In ScienceBlogs: Sign up for our newsletter.

The Island of Doubt

An irregular exploration of the struggle between the power of rational discourse and the scientific method on one hand, and the forces of superstition and dogma on the other. Mostly regarding climate change, though.

Profile

me-fergus.jpg James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.

Search

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Other Doubtful Blogs

Inspiration

The Demon-Haunted World:
Science as a Candle
in the Dark, by Carl Sagan
(A review)

The Doubter's Companion:
by John Ralston Saul (Excerpts)

Skeptic Magazine: www.skeptic.com

Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal: www.csicop.org

A poem by Yehuda Amichai:
The Place
Where We Are Right


The Meaning of the
Island of Doubt


Author's site: cyamid.net


Add to Technorati Favorites! Penetrating so many secrets, we cease to believe in the unknowable. But there it sits nevertheless, calmly licking its chops.
--- H. L. Mencken

By doubting we come to inquiry; and through inquiry we perceive truth.
--- Peter Abelard

Undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance.
-- Richard Dawkins

As for evolution, it happened. Deal with it.
-- Michael Shermer.

"There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve, then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving, and tiny blasts of tinny trumpets, we have met the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us."
--Walt Kelly

« Ejaculation, sinus relief and "two excellent reasons for publishing loopy papers" | Main | In praise of planetariums (and Laser Floyd) »

Why can't American scientists be like this?

Category: climate
Posted on: October 7, 2008 4:01 PM, by James Hrynyshyn

The Canadian Press has this story about Canadian scientists who have written an open letter calling on the Canadian voter to consider climate change in next week's federal election. When will their American colleagues follow suit?

Here's the opening to the letter:

We have been disturbed by what we perceive to be a lack of attention to the environment during this election campaign. While it's clear the public accepts that global warming is a threat, it seems people have simply no idea how serious this issue is. Global warming is without a doubt the defining issue of our time, and we cannot let economic turmoil in the USA dissuade us from addressing the problem. Dealing with the environment means dealing with economics in a sustainable way.
And here's the story:
VANCOUVER -- More than 120 of Canada's top climate scientists have signed an open letter urging Canadians to vote strategically for the environment in next week's federal election.

Andrew Weaver, a lead author with last year's Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says global warming is the defining issue of our time.

But Dr. Weaver says the Conservative government of Stephen Harper has not addressed the "innovative and urgent policies" needed to significantly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

The group's John Stone says this is shaping up to be "the rare election in which the environment is the issue."

Dr. Stone says never has attention to the environment been more necessary, but he says the opportunity for an informed national debate on Canada's response to global warming is slipping away.

Campaigning in Vancouver on Tuesday, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said the Conservatives have still not embraced the concept that climate change is real.

"We have a government that believes that ideology should trump science," Mr. Dion told party supporters. "Stephen Harper has denied the reality of climate change."

The letter, signed by a who's who of Canada's top climate experts, says "it seems people have simply no idea how serious this issue is" even though it's clear the public accepts that global warming is a threat.

"Global warming is a problem that must be dealt with now, before it's too late," says the letter. "Any further delay will only increase the risks of damage and costs of action.

"The world needs to start down a path of greenhouse-gas reduction to avert the most serious consequences of global warming."

Even if atmospheric greenhouse gases are stabilized at current levels, it says, the Arctic would still go ice free in the summer, between 10 and 25 per cent of the world's species would still be committed to extinction, and weather will continue to become more extreme.

Many of the letter's signatories are research scientists who depend on federal granting agencies for the bulk of their funding.

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/82987

Comments

1

I wonder if that's a little dig at the scientists there in the last line.

Do any Canadian scientists who deny climate change get paid on the government dole?

Posted by: Glendon Mellow | October 7, 2008 5:52 PM

2

Maybe more surprising to some is the open letter from >230 Canadian economists urging climate change action.

http://econ-environment.ca/

"More than 230 economists teaching in Canadian universities have signed an open letter to federal political leaders calling for economically coherent action on climate change. Among the signatories are some of Canada's top economists, including current and past presidents of the Canadian Economics Association, and holders of Canada Research Chairs and the Order of Canada."

Posted by: Dale | October 7, 2008 6:30 PM

3

I will be voting Green and I am trying to gently persuade all to.

People are scared and selfish - we have too much material wealth, to do the right thing.

Posted by: paulm | October 8, 2008 1:42 AM

4

Gee paulm. Great idea. Do you like Stephen Harper? Vote Green.

When there is something like Single Transferable Vote in Federal Elections, then it will be fine to vote Green. But voting Green now means you are almost surely trying to elect candidates that have no chance of being elected, and are magnifying the power of the vote for the Conservative by not backing their nearest rival.

If you don't think strategic voting in a first past the post system matters, look back to the US election in 2000.

If you don't like people nagging you about voting strategically, support STV or a similar proportional system and get it implemented.


Posted by: crf | October 8, 2008 2:10 AM

5

Thanks for the advice crf. But I have concluded its time to vote on your principles.

Posted by: paulm | October 8, 2008 12:13 PM

6

Thanks for the advice crf. But I have concluded its time to vote on your principles.

Posted by: paulm | October 8, 2008 12:44 PM

7

I agree with you, PaulM. I gave up voting strategically a few years ago, and the Greens have been slowly and steadily gaining ground. Sometimes change takes time.

Vote your principles.

Posted by: Glendon Mellow | October 8, 2008 8:52 PM

8

To answer your question - because they're not politically motivated money grabbing eco greeny weeny dweebs chasing a buck on the back of a total farce like CO2 plantfood causing MANMAD GLOBAL WARMING.

Posted by: James is a Goober | October 23, 2008 11:06 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Advertisement

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM