Our view: Does it really matter? If we can do more with less, why not? If we can preserve and protect natural assets, how is that a bad thing? If we are in the beginnings of a multi-trillion dollar investment opportunity as we migrate away from fossil fuels, should we not take advantage of the financial windfalls and rebuild our economy?
We like the dollars and cents of investment and return. And those numbers, in our view, are great. We are, in a very positive way, reaping what we sow.
The world is in the grip of global warming. Everything will keep getting hotter and hotter. Then we'll all die.
That's the consensus from the scientific "community." That's the "settled science" Barack Obama always talked about.
But getting to the point that any science is actually "settled" – as in 100 percent accurate – is very difficult. There may be strong evidence to point to one conclusion, but it may turn out that we didn't have all the information needed to arrive at the correct finding, or, data may change over time, leading us down a different path.
"In the 1970’s scientists were predicting a new ice age, and had 60 theories to explain it. The cooling trend heralds the start of another ice age, of a duration that could last from 200 years to several millenia..." the Depot wrote.
Now, that's a good thing that they had 60 theories. Scientists should postulate hypotheses based on information available at the time, but they should always be ready to jettison some ill-formed conclusion if later data contradicts it. Science is hard. Just when you think you've got enough info to draw a "settled" conclusion, in comes data to shoot it down.
Settled Science? Sorry, liberals, there's often no such thing. Sure, science has found some irrefutable truths. Doctors washing their hands before surgery was once laughable, but we know today – without a shadow of a doubt – that dirty hands carry germs, and germs cause infection. But there are still tons of things we don't know.
Food is a perfect example. For decades, we’ve been told to stay away from butter and cream and eggs and cheese because the fats in them will lead to heart disease. Now, a group of doctors has come out to say there's no data to conclude such a thing, and they claim the notion that saturated fats clog the arteries is incorrect.
"Despite popular belief among doctors and the public, the conceptual model of dietary saturated fat clogging a pipe is just plain wrong," Dr. Aseem Malhotra of Lister Hospital in Britain, Pascal Meier of University College London and U.S. cardiologist professor Rita Redberg wrote in a British health journal.
They say moderate consumption of foods rich in saturated fat isn't actually bad for you. Some of those fats actually help protect your heart, like those found in olive oil and nuts. "It is time to shift the public health message in the prevention and treatment of coronary artery disease away from measuring [blood fats] and reducing dietary saturated fat. Coronary artery disease is a chronic inflammatory disease and it can be reduced effectively by walking 22 minutes a day and eating real food. There is no market to help spread this simple yet powerful intervention."
All of this has happened before: Eggs were said to be bad for you (then doctors said they're actually great for you). Then they said carbohydrates and sweets make you fat. They don't. Calories (too many of them) make you fat. A nutrition professor once ate only Twinkies for 10 weeks – and lost 27 pounds.
Me, I'm OK with science getting things wrong from time to time. I didn't stop eating eggs because they said I'd get heart disease, and I won't start eating six dozen eggs a week now that they're OK again, either. Science gets things wrong. It's the only way they ever get things right – trial and error, and lots more research.
No comments:
Post a Comment