re: #317 SixDegrees

I haven’t commented on my own opinion of global warming. My concern is the distortion of the scientific process, the substitution of popular opinion in place of scientific proof, and the promotion of scientific mythology that never took place. In short, I’d like to see the debate conducted based on fact instead of deception. It doesn’t do either side’s argument any good if it relies on wild distortions and outright lies. And given that the argument is framed as a scientific one, it ought to be conducted within the accepted scientific framework - not on the op-ed page.

On scientific grounds it would have to meet accepted guidelines. However, the overall debate encompasses policy which has a place in the op-ed page. If we get to the point were we ignore how policy decisions are made on the grounds of isolated scientific ground in the back rooms of congressional offices that would not reflect a true democracy. We cannot create policy based on scientific ground alone. It cannot be done in the manner of “if the scientists say it the right thing to do then we must do it.” Otherwise we become a technocracy of sorts.