Posted by
Travis Bonifield on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:33:40 PM
Yet another
article on global warming & the end of the world. If Al Gore and Stephen Hawking say it, then it must be true, right?
I've spent the last 16 years of my life studying, designing, and fixing problems with computer electronics. As an expert in computer electronics, I'd like to tell you what the future of genetic research holds for society. Within the next hundred years, humans will have vastly increased intellectual capacity. Brain size, and therefore intelligence, will increase on the order of 25%. We will manipulate babies genetically before they are born to ensure this happens, and while we're at it, we will add a third arm protuding from the chest, so you can keep both hands on the wheel while you talk on the cell phone in the car.
I'm an electronics engineer, an expert in my field, so of course people should accept my claims on this subject right? I'm so smart, they just have to believe me.
Everyone has a right to their opinion, even expert scientists. But why is it that when a scientist, even a famous and brilliant one, makes claims about subject matter completely out of his area of expertise, the media picks it up and claims it as proof?
If Albert Einstein were still around and told me that 2+2 doesn't necessarily equal 4, or that the theory of relativity was just a really good hoax, I'd believe him. I might like to ask for some more details about how the hoax was pulled off, and what about all this other scientific study which seems to support the theory. I might like to ask for a mathematical proof as to why 2+2 no longer equals 4, but so long as I don't believe he has anything to gain by lying about it, I'd accept his claims.
But when someone who is not actually an environmental scientist starts making claims about Global Warming, why should we give their opinions any more significance than Joe Blow on the street? Of course famous and brilliant people are certainly entitled to their opinions on whatever subject they choose, just as anyone else. That doesn't mean their opinion constitutes proof of the matter.
Einstein is often noted as having been one of the smartest men in history. But that's not really true. He may have been the smartest mathematician or the smartest physical scientist (though Stephen Hawking is a serious contender for that spot), but that doesn't make him the smartest philosopher or the smartest linguist or the smartest, well, anything else!
Enter the media. Famous, and in some cases, very intelligent people make claims that global warming is going to destroy our planet. If they are environmental scientists, that gives more credence to their claims. Even then, I'd want to know where they work and who is funding their research and whether the scientific community has reviewed and agrees with their work (to date, no expert claiming global warming can make this claim). If they are politicians or actors or business moguls, their opinions shoudn't even be news (unless they happen to be passing legislation concerning the subject, in which case I hope they excercise their free speech and show us how much, or how little, they actually know on the subject).
The fact that so many people accept their claims as fact without checking the original sources, especially the media, who's job it is to check those sources, just really boggles my mind.