Everyone knows there are two sides to every story and so things generate their own opposites if only to fulfill the expectations, and so light creates dark, even if dark is nothing at all.
a trivial notion, of course, but the practice of using the shadow of a
thing to discredit or obliterate that thing has consequences that are
far from trivial, because the nothing we give a name to can, at least in
the emotional logic the public loves and public passion feeds on,
cancel out something. Every assertion that must be blunted or countered
or denounced can be reversed in sign, so to speak and used to cancel the
assertion. At least it can in a world, in an inner universe of the
mind where people don't think too much or too well and can be convinced
that one's image in a mirror can cancel itself out if we don't like what
we see. There must be two sides if we're to reduce a question of fact to a matter of opinion and that's just what the game is.
must be two sides, even if all the data is on one of them. Each side
has it's adherents and even if the question "is it raining?" can be
answered more reliably by those standing outside, those inside an inner
room with no windows have to be given equal credibility if the 'two
sides' hypothesis is valid. So when we look at the question: is the
average temperature of the Earth getting higher or the question are
human activities contributing substantially, the advantage to the side
with the data; the side the atmospheric paleontologists, the geologists,
the paleo-climatologists are on, is minimized, if not cancelled out by
the side that has the money and political connections. We have the
side with massive pertinent information and we have the Republicans, the
Coal, Oil and Gas cartels who own them and a handful of people with
dubious scientific credentials crying hoax.
This is not a
scientific problem, there is no scientific controversy, it's class
warfare, and the success will depend on things other than data and there's a battle in Stockholm today.
There's a battle here in America too, where there are always two sides
and thus equal credibility independent of evidence and where questions
of chemistry and physics are questions of which party you belong to,
where motivated reasoning passes for objective analysis. The goal of the
argument is to minimize risks to the international cartels and to the
party they own. It's not about science, it's about allegiance.
don't take these things to the laboratory, to the peer reviewed
publications, they look only at selected data and cast stones at the
rest. They take it to Joe the Plumber. They take it to the Republicans.
They take it to Congress. They purchase opinions. They take it to the
huddled masses yearning to sound knowledgeable by crying hoax at every
bit of truth they can find and in a way there are two sides to the
climate question. The one with the trillions and the side with the