S/V Danneskjöld: On the Politics of Science
Snap thought of the day: Some of the most divisive issues in today’s ‘politics’ are actually questions of unsettled, or disputed science.
Persons who are pro-life believe the science that says a child in the womb is alive, genetically and anatomically distinct, and therefore deserving of human rights. Persons who are pro-abortion believe, for whatever reason, that a child in the womb is either not alive, or not human. The issue isn’t political, because if the pro-abortionist believed that the child in the womb as a living human, he or she would favor that living human’s rights.
Similarly with Anthropomorphic Global ‘Warming.’ Again, the issue is scientific. One side believes that there is solid science indicating that the earth is getting warmer at an increasing rate, that the cause is human activity, that the results will be disastrous and that humans have the ability to reverse this situation. All of those are beliefs and applications of science. Those who disagree do so for scientific reasons. They believe either, or all, that the earth is not warming, that warming is not caused by man, that the danger is not imminent, and/or that man is powerless or lacks sufficient knowledge to change the process.
If the non-warmists believed that manmade global warming was an imminent threat they could do something about, they would be in the streets demanding it be done. They are convinced, however, by difference scientific arguments that the warmists are wrong.
For these reasons there is no ‘middle ground’ on the issue. You can compromise politics, but not science.
This is also the reason that the popular MSM categorization of Libertarians as being pro-abortion is wildly inaccurate.