I really don’t understand why The Post chose to run this meandering, uninteresting, ignorance-celebrating piece on Monday. At least with the global warming nay-sayers you get clear statements about what consequences of regulation they fear. I might or might not think they have a point, but at least they have one. Instead we get here a column from Emily Yoffe, who has told us in the past how she tests out at a first-grade level with regards to math skills. I don’t think I’m going on on a limb here in thinking that someone who didn’t make it up to percentages doesn’t have a great grasp of the scientific method, much less a finger on the pulse of the scientific community and a grasp of what’s knowable or not.
I can only hope that once she takes a rudimentary class on addition she’ll take a few minutes to read David Brin’s piece over here about global warming matters. He was writing in response to naysayers rather than know-nothing-ers, but he is going out of his way not to get into a battle of facts and instead talks about what we know and why, cutting right the vaguely heart-like-thing of the second-half-ish-part of Yoffe’s article. Perhaps it’ll convince Ms Yoffe that even though she might be willfully ignorant about science that doesn’t mean everyone is, though I get the sense that she’ll turn up her nose at anyone who actually studied science. What could they know?
If Brin uses too many scientific words like “emissions” and “ecosystems” for Ms Yoffe then maybe she can consider this instead: if you’re going to go around stating that you won’t trust a weather projection for 2080 because “no one can offer me one for August 2008” then I’d like you to similarly refuse to trust a projection about the economy because nobody can tell you exactly how many loaves of bread will be sold at your corner store next week. Macro studies are different than Micro studies.
This post appeared in its original form at DC Metblogs