The Economist - 지구온난화에 대한 과학적 논쟁은 계속되어야 한다 by PAUL

Climate change
A heated debate

Nov 26th 2009
From The Economist print edition

Why political orthodoxy must not silence scientific argument

“WHAT is truth?” That was Pontius Pilate’s answer to Jesus’s assertion that “Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice.” It sounds suspiciously like the modern argument over climate change.

A majority of the world’s climate scientists have convinced themselves, and also a lot of laymen, some of whom have political power, that the Earth’s climate is changing; that the change, from humanity’s point of view, is for the worse; and that the cause is human activity, in the form of excessive emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. A minority, though, are sceptical. Some think that recent, well-grounded data suggesting the Earth’s average temperature is rising are explained by natural variations in solar radiation, and that this trend may be coming to an end. Others argue that longer-term evidence that modern temperatures are higher than they have been for hundreds or thousands of years is actually too flaky to be meaningful.

Such disagreements are commonplace in science. They are eventually settled by the collection of more data and the invention of more refined (or entirely new) theories. Arguments may persist for decades; academics may—and often do—sling insults at each other; but it does not matter a great deal because the stakes are normally rather low.

The stakes in the global-warming debate, however, could scarcely be higher. Scientific evidence that climate change is under way, is man-made, and is likely to continue happening forms the foundation for an edifice of policy which is intended to transform the world’s carbon-intensive economy into one which no longer spews greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. A lot of money, and many reputations—both academic and political—are involved.

Sceptics claim that this burden of responsibility is crushing the spirit of scientific inquiry. Scientists, they maintain, are under pressure to bolster the majority view. The recent publication of embarrassing e-mails from the University of East Anglia, an important centre of climate science (see article), revealing doubts about data and a determination not to air such concerns publicly, has strengthened these suspicions.

There is no doubt that politics and science make uncomfortable bedfellows. Politicians sell certainty. Science lives off doubt. The creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to establish a consensus on the science was an excellent idea for policymakers, who needed a strong scientific foundation for their deliberations, but it sits uncomfortably with a discipline that advances by disproving accepted theories and overturning orthodoxies.

The danger of dissent
Some would argue that, in matters of great public import, scientific dissent should be silenced. It can, it is true, do harm. When AIDS first reared its ugly head, no one knew what caused it. Gradually, the virus responsible was isolated, identified and then attacked successfully with drugs designed specifically to inhibit its reproduction. A few scientists, though, refused to accept the evidence, and some politicians used their arguments to justify inaction. Since one of those politicians was Thabo Mbeki, then president of South Africa, hundreds of thousands who might have been saved by an anti-AIDS policy grounded in scientific reality died as a result of his policies.

Yet the damage in that case was done by the politicians. A leader who is determined to pursue a wrong-headed course will always find some scientist to support him. A world in which that were not true would be one in which a dangerously narrow consensus had taken hold.

This newspaper believes that global warming is a serious threat, and that the world needs to take steps to try to avert it. That is the job of the politicians. But we do not believe that climate change is a certainty. There are no certainties in science. Prevailing theories must be constantly tested against evidence, and refined, and more evidence collected, and the theories tested again. That is the job of the scientists. When they stop questioning orthodoxy, mankind will have given up the search for truth. The sceptics should not be silenced.


빼빼로 산타 by PAUL

아버지 생신 저녁식사에 초대받은 쑥씨
정말 놀랍게도 정성스레 준비해 온 선물을 나눠주며
우리 가족 모두에게 빼빼로 산타가 되어 주었다.

특히 마냥 좋아라 하는 두 조카, 은서와 시영이, 를 보고 있자니
참 좋은 사람을 만났구나 하는 생각이 새삼 들었다.

아기자기하게 각각 다른 쪽지를 적어 달아준 센스는 정말 최고.

고맙습니다.

    


가을맞이 춘천 맛집 기행 @ 부안막국수 / 통나무집 닭갈비 by PAUL

신종플루도 다 나았고
주말에 공부한다고 드라이브 한번 못 간걸 사죄하며
춘천 드라이브 고고씽

맛집 방문이 주 목적이었던 만큼 막국수집과 닭갈비집을 미리 섭외하여 온 쑥씨
기특하기 짝이 없다 ㅎㅎ

1. 부안막국수
이제껏 야식으로 족발과 함께 시켜먹었던 푸석푸석한 비빔면과 다른 진정한 막국수
집 주변에 이런 막국수집 있으면 밤에 마구마구 땡길 듯 하다.
함께 시킨 총떡은 밀전병에 김치/녹두 등을 넣은 월남쌈 비스무리한 것으로 담백하니 괜찮았다.

    


    


소화도 시킬 겸 춘천의 명동을 방문,
때마침 겨울연가를 추억하며 춘천을 찾은 일본인 관광객들을 볼 수 있었다.
허무하지 않을까 하는 걱정도 살짝 될 정도.

춘천에 닭갈비 골목이 있는 걸 첨 알았는데
골목에 있던 닭 포토제닉이 너무 웃기게 생겨주셔서 --;

    


    


닭갈비로 유명한 통나무집이 소양댐 근처인지라 내친김에 댐까지 올라가 보았다.
이곳이 그 유명한 청평호반 이군!

    


    


    


    


2. 통나무집 닭갈비
맛을 보고선 왜 그리 유명한지 한방에 납득이 되었다.
감동의 눈물.. 흑 닭갈비가 이리도 깊은 맛이 날 수 있구나
예전 2001년 친구 102보충대 데려다주며 먹었던 닭갈비 만큼이나 맛있었다.
배가 좀 부른 상태라 600g(2인분)이 많지 않을까 했는데 후후 엄한 걱정이었다.
결국 밥까지 비벼먹지 못한게 아쉬울 뿐
다음에 이거 먹으러 또 달려갈 거 같다. 

    


    


    


    


서울춘천고속도로 타고 서울로 고고씽

    



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 다음