There is more unknown than known. There is more mystery than clarity. And that will be true for at least another 10,000 years (if we even survive in the same form). That's why this over-reliance on science—or rather, this belligerence against those that look at science with skepticism—is obtuse. So many very crucial assumptions created by science in the last 50 years have been upended, so what's to say we've got a lock down on it now?
But I see what you're doing. You're trying to make all of science seem like a wash, that just because there have been periodic debunkings of science throughout the course of human history, somehow means there's no solid scientific truths. Plus, you have to concede we're getting smarter. Just because almost all scientists would've thought Galileo was wrong at the time, doesn't mean our orders-of-magnitude greater number of scientists (with orders-of-magnitude greater store of knowledge to draw from) are equivalently deluded.
This bit from wikipedia is plenty truth for me:
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion [on climate change].
Nor can you shroud this in any kind of mystery or skepticism:
But no truth exists without context or meaning. What does this mean for me? Does that mean I should recycle? Probably. There's so many things to be concerned about. I bought tickets recently to a show and they said that $1 from the show is donated to a charity either of our choice or from one of these four categories:
- Animals
- Children
- Environment
- Human Rights
Check out this Pew Poll in January 22, 2009 on Americans' priorities:
So I mean, the left browbeats Red America over the small percentage of them that speak up like conspiracy nuts with their climate change skepticism, but the truth of the mater is, most people don't care enough to check out that wikipedia page in 5 seconds and verify.
subscribe to feed
You should follow me on Twitter here
