Environment, Media, Politics, Washington Post

New Post Partisan Piece: “Why Are Climate Scientists the Only Scientists We Don’t Trust?”

Here’s my latest for the Washington Post. Go read it! Excerpt:

Without science, you wouldn’t be reading this right now. There’d be no LCD screen or fiber-optic cables or communications satellites or computer software, or…you get the idea. We love science — as long as it makes our lives more comfortable.

Also, this video is a funny addendum, if somewhat NSFW and vulgar.

About CPW

Conor P. Williams writes and teaches in Washington, D.C. Find him on Facebook or Twitter. Here’s his email. Here are his credentials.

Discussion

6 Responses to “New Post Partisan Piece: “Why Are Climate Scientists the Only Scientists We Don’t Trust?””

  1. I really like this argument…glad you’re staying with it.

    Posted by Mitch | June 26, 2011, 10:29 am
  2. Do “we” actually trust scientists, though?

    Posted by thewedge | June 26, 2011, 12:40 pm
  3. To clarify, you give examples of us using technology, but does the use of technology imply a trust of scientists, or simply a desire for the comfort and efficiency that technology ostensibly provides?

    Posted by thewedge | June 26, 2011, 12:43 pm
    • I think it implies a trust of both. In any case, the leaded gasoline example provides a further buttress. We trust scientists on lead/mercury emissions, on cigarettes and lung diseases, etc.

      Posted by CPW | June 26, 2011, 12:52 pm
      • I wonder if we actually do though. If, for instance, the question of leaded vs. unleaded gas suddenly became a partisan issue akin to global warming (or any other don’t-trust-the-scientists debate, creationism obviously comes to mind (although maybe we can blame that one on bad theology)) would we see the majority of people trusting scientific consensus? I somehow doubt it, and it’s not simply science. I’ve encountered the same thing in history and philosophy with regularity. Essentially, I think your “truth is too inconvenient” point is dead on, but that it actually needs to be applied more generally. People don’t understand or are unwilling to understand expertise if it contradicts with their pre-conceived notions, most often the notions formed by whatever group/position they self-identify with. Thus, a committed conservative rejects climate science and the committed “free-thinker” rejects that Christianity did not cause the “Dark Ages”, and so on.

        Posted by thewedge | June 26, 2011, 1:25 pm
        • Perhaps. Recalls Upton Sinclair’s famous line: “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Replace “salary” with “convictions we use as daily shortcuts for living” and it fits nicely.

          Posted by CPW | June 26, 2011, 1:45 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Archives

June 2011
M T W T F S S
« May   Jul »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers

%d bloggers like this: