I suspect my friend Roger the Surf will hate this article. But, then again, healthy debate is the basis of free speech!
This article in the LA Times is written by a lady who is both a scientist and a historian, Naomi Oreskes. Coming from California, you would expect her to be very much convinced by the Climate Change issue seeing as it is the most progressive US state on the matter. And she does make an interesting point in her article. Having just completed jury service, she makes the observation that the US justice system (like the English system from which it is descended) is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the jury should make its judgement on the basis of all the facts presented at the conclusion of the case – not when they don’t know enough about it. This is what the judge in her case instructed.
She makes the analogy that scientists, therefore, are in fact jurors examining all the evidence for Climate Change. They are not prosecutors trying to prove the case. The evidence is fairly extensive and scientists have largely made up their minds. What they don’t have is a guiding judge to direct them on their verdict. Maybe this is why they are having difficulties getting their point across?
Judge for yourself (forgive the pun!) – click here to read the article.