A science debate based on science – is that too much to ask?
Globe watchers from everywhere have gathered in Copenhagen to predict the future of the Earth. Is everything going wonderfully? Are all we about to burn up and die?
You can’t call these questions minor. You can’t say the difference is insignificant. So it would it be nice if the expert discussion began with some actual factual expertise.
Don’t hold your breath.
More and more, science and ideology are mashed up together, neither reflecting well on the other. Is global warming serious? What causes it? Can it be reversed? How those questions are answered now has less to do with experiment and analysis, the bedrock of factual inquiry. It has more to do with what political side the debater is on.
Is this any way to save a planet?
Ellis Henican is a columnist for Newsday and amNewYork. He is a Fox News contributor.