Scott wrote:
> Not to be argumentative, but WHY, if someone--say a scientist--or
> even a concerned citizen--makes a statement that we humans are
> damaging our environment, or there is some environmental pollutant
> that is causing illness to humans who happen to be down wind (or
> stream)--WHY are they called a "SOCIALIST" or worse a "COMMUNIST" and
> their statements or opinions summarily dismissed?

My Dad was a salesman, a preacher and a bartender.  My wife is a scientist
(biology Ph.D.) and I started in physics and took a right turn into Math and
Computer Science.  As such, I am all too sensitive to the art of persuasion.
Bringing up a problem does not make one a socialist nor a communist.  If you
see an ad on TV that informs you of your dire toe-fungus problem, that does
not say anything.  It is the solution to the problem that gives this away:

a.) Sell you medicine (capitalist)
b.) Have your neighbor pay for the medicine through taxes (socialist)
c.) Make sure everyone has the same toe-fungus except for the leaders
because some toes are more equal than others. (communist)

> For example, my wife has asthma--very severe asthma. Since we live in
> Kentucky and there are no blanket rules against smoking in public
> buildings, we have to carefully choose which public places we enter.
> Yet, when we mention that we must sit far away from the smoking
> section of a restaurant, invariably a patron of the restaurant who
> happens to be a smoker begins an accusatory tirade questioning our
> political affiliation.  I apologize, but my desire--and my wife's
> NEED--to avoid cigarette smoke has NOTHING to do with whether or not
> belong to the failed Stalinist political system.

If a restaurant is dumb enough to allow smoking around me, I tell the
manager that I won't patronize her establishment.  I vote with my feet.  She
paid for the joint and has worked very hard to run it.  If she can make it
without my business, fine.  It's her money.  I don't have a right to run
anybody else's business that they paid with their sweat and money.

> The same goes with these scientists. When they make a statement--such
> as rising CO2 levels are causing global warming or industrial
> pollutants are causing illness--their CREDENTIALS are not
> questioned--but their political agenda is.

I don't question their claim, uh, well I do a little*, it's the proposed
"SOLUTION" that makes the distinction.  Being around scientists quite a bit,
I have what Wirt calls the "bullshit" response.  Just because a scientist
says something, I don't automatically buy it.  Some of the scientists I know
locally have gigantic egos and being wrong does not come easy to some of
them.  I want to hear the argument and not just fear, uncertainty and doubt.

> When your doctor tells you your blood pressure is too high, and your
> cholesterol is approaching 911, you do not question whether or not he
> has a political agenda against highly stressed people and pig
> farmers, do you? You do not accuse him of attempting to ruin your
> livelihood (or the pork producer's) by asking that you live
> healthier?  You either lose weight, chill out, and lower your
> cholesterol or you ignore him and see who dies first.

BTW, My Doctor's a women who did have heart attack first.  ;-)

My doctor gave me the line about weight and cholesterol but then finished
the lecture with "of course, after this, I have lost patients with low
cholesterol who are as thin as a rail, so there's no guarantees."  A nice
dose of honesty.  She's open to the possibility of another theory, like
inflammation or genetics.  If she told me that the Bush administration is
the worst thing that's happened to heart disease, well, I'd take it with a
block of salt and fried sausage.

Getting back to the UCS, here's the deal.  From their website in the About
Us section:

"UCS's programs are the means by which we accomplish this. They are the
pressure points translating vision into action. Through them, we connect the
best scientific insights with the knowledge and support of an astute
citizenry and apply them to the machinery of government at all levels—with
results that have set a standard for effective advocacy for decades."

The UCS wants to bring about change through government.  That's one way to
do it but I prefer it when someone takes the time to make the case to the
public instead of forcing the solution from the top down.  Convince me,
don't convince someone else to force the idea onto me.

Mark W.

P.S.  Last OT post on this topic but I'll be happy to take it offline.

* Just some interest thoughts on climate change:

When I "came of age" in science, the concern was global cooling.  The
scientists were all very serious about it.
http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

We have very little data to go on.  We have about 200 years of land
temperature records in selected areas and we only have a few decades of
satellite data.

The Mars ice-caps are melting like Earth's.  Are humans causing that too?

Is it possible that global temperature change is directly proportional to
solar output or is the Sun's output constant and the only changes to global
temperature are the results of humans?  There is some data that shows some
correlation.  http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/new-enso.htm

I am not saying that humans don't have an effect on the climate, all I am
doing is asking more questions.  If someone has a theory, it should be able
to account for these other observations before it should be taken as fact.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *