Recent developments like the hacking of e-mails at University of East Anglia have given the right ammunition to argue that the actions of a handful of researchers "prove that anthropogenic global warming is all a hoax. They offer no theories as to why anyone would conjure up such a hoax and cite no science to support their opposing view; instead, they call on their opponents to disprove what they themselves have failed to prove scientifically.
What does all this have to do with Dick Cheney's "One-Percent Doctrine ?
I think it's time to bring the other two cells, Cell B and Cell D, of the logic grid into the debate. Cell B says that even if the science is wrong, or at least unsupportable in places, they world will still be a better place for future generations if we take positive action now to preserve and improve the environment.
Cell D " the science may be right but we still do nothing " is the scary one as it may leave future generations with an uninhabitable planet. Yet this cell would shrink to insignificance if we applied Cheney's "One-Percent Doctrine to the subject of climate change.
Imagine an official government policy that said, "If there is even a one-percent chance that climate science is right, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis, or finding a preponderance of evidence. It's about our response.
"It's not about our analysis or finding a preponderance of evidence. It's about our response. When we took that approach to terrorism, the right applauded.
Why can't we do that for climate change? Let's broaden this debate to include Cells B and D, and to ask why we should not apply the "One-Percent Doctrine to the imperatives of climate change.
The scientific analysis and the preponderance of evidence support positive action now. A "One-Percent approach would demand it.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).