To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing you about the recently published speech given by former Vice-President Al Gore at his Nobel Prize reception ceremony. Your company published the speech in its entirety, which I greatly appreciate, but offered no counter-point to his claims. While I am not an Al Gore supporter, I have been moved by many of his arguments and emotional appeals. His arguments are compelling, although generally based on emotional appeal over hard fact. However, I am more concerned about the influence his speech may have on the less informed audience that may interpret Gore’s statements as “absolute facts”.
For example, Gore makes many references to what “scientists say” or other cited credible sources have written, announced or published. The issue for me is not the validity of what was said or published but those credible sources, but the context in which the facts were cited in Gore’s speech. As a trained scientist myself for over 15 years, I have learned to question all facts and claims and put them to the test before making any assumptions. There are ALWAYS conflicting facts and theories to any given theory in science. That is the nature of science; the nature of scientists, to question, criticize and scrutinize all facts and claims until a single, consistent and verified theory emerges. Such a validated scientific theory could stand the test of time for decades until new data emerges which disproves it. The problem with Gore’s approach to scientific issues is to immediately dismiss anyone (be it a scientist or member of the general pubic) as “foolish or uniformed” if they have differing opinions or conflicting facts. Such personal attacks on the credibility of those who challenge Gore’s beliefs does not foster the productive, rational debate on the subject which he and his followers claim to desire.
Please do not get me wrong. I am not in favor of allowing corporations to spew billions of tons of toxic waste into our oceans and atmosphere, but I am certainly NOT in favor of idolizing Gore or his particular beliefs on the matter is the only definitive authority. It is foolish to assume Gore is anything but a well-spoken, well-educated lawyer and politician. He is NO scientist no matter how many years of “study” he claims to have on the subject of global warning, or Academy Awards he wins as a filmmaker. I would never assume to know more about politics than a professional politician; and so should he not assume to know more about the scientific method or rational scientific debate than other scientists who disagree with him.
Like Al Gore, I too have a purpose. My purpose to ensure an open, healthy debate on the subject of global warming so that we can truly address the issues and not be bogged down with personal speculation or loosely connected “facts” that support some political ideology. The earth’s climate is changing, and possibly for the worse. But that does not give Al Gore any more authority on the subject than those who truly study climatology, oceanography, and geology for a living. For the sake of fairness and balance, I strongly recommend that your company publish counter-arguments to Gore’s speech by qualified scientists in the future. No matter how many Nobel prizes Gore accumulates, he is no authority on the subject – only a man with an opinion like everyone else.
I greatly appreciate your consideration in this matter and look forward to your published rebuttal to Gore’s speech in your next issue.
Sincerest regards,
Concerned Citizen
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hello’ Mad Scientist’, in your blog I could tell that you were not very fond of the Al Gore Speech. I respect your honesty about the speech as well as passion upon the subject of global warming. You were very critical of Mr. Gore’s presentation and the information he had compiled. I am very saddened by your harsh reaction to this Nobel Prize reception Speech. I recall you writing that you were worried about the influence that this speech might have on the less informed. I want to bring light to the fact that many people do not pay attention to the global events nor do they imagine the effects their actions may cause. I feel that the work and effort by this individual is just as important as those you deem “real scientist”. I believe in a Politician driven world where money makes it go around, it is important that big name politicians or people in similar capacities bring important issues such as global warming to the forefront. Now I understand that some of his points and views might not be what you deem as right, but you have to remember that he is a politician with obligation to those who are supportive of his campaigns whether it political or earthical. In my eyes, Al Gore is making a positive contribution to the cause, and that contribution should not be over looked by misconception about his motives. I believe the overall objective is to raise awareness about global warming as a whole.
ReplyDeleteYour blog was fun to read, I wish you the best of luck in your future post.
Thanks for the reply. I think you may have misinterpreted my intention with this post. I am very much a supporter of Al Gore's efforts to raise public awareness of the dangers of out of control industrial pollution and possible climate change. However, my concern stemmed from the lack of a counter-argument published along with his speech. If you've ever heard Gore testify before Congressional committees he makes no allowances for anyone questioning his conclusions, methods or data. That's expected if one is in the political arena, but not for someone basing his argument on a "scientific methods". Science is about balancing the facts to support or disprove standing theories. Global warming is a scientific theory based on many years of climate change observations. I am not questioning the basic facts of Gore's claims - just the lack of an opposing viewpoint with the original publication.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, I tend to agree with you that Gore's efforts have boosted public awareness on the subject to put pressure on government officials - and ultimately corporations - around the world. But the issue should be debated based on the strength of the scientific data, and not on Gore's personal motivations or agenda.
JM