Search This Blog

Friday, March 3, 2017

Global warming

Global warming

What are the facts involved?

How are we to know what to believe and what not to believe with conflicting claims and counter claims from authorities?

How can ordinary people and the masses decipher what to do and what not to do in the absence of clarity on this when there is no consensus among the scientific community itself?

In political and economic issues when can easily perceive the media lies if we want to but here since global warming  involves a scientific pronouncement of a phenomenon of  a macro scale so huge that most of it cannot be explained through laboratory experiments and herein lies the problem.

All these problems are further complicated by throwing into a single cauldron 

Science - especially with its weak aspects which are not fully proven with concrete evidences;

International economics - especially one whose volatility is unpredictable on any concrete parameters;

Politics -especially with sides opposing one another purely based on predetermined ideologies;

Socio-ethical values- especially with all its vulnerable components of mass opinions and so many other factors all of which can contribute more to the vagueness and conflicting claims.

Worse still, all these are continuously being churned with hidden agendas, ulterior motives, simmering discontent, lurking suspicions and so on and so forth.

While the churning goes on and on, the cauldron is covered with a lid of confusing, contradictory but diplomatically correct jargons which are carefully coined and policies decisions scrupulous crafted to sound acceptable all.

So, how can we ever expect to move forward without correct data, concrete evidence or facts?

Whatever emerges out is a bundle of compromises agreeable to many of the men and nations that matter most -euphemism for nations that dominate the discourse- and the businesses that stand to gain and also incidentally generate more revenue and jobs for many-which in a way indirectly shuts any further sincere scientific scrutiny.

No comments: