Does COP15 have the truth as a basis to work from?
Yesterday evening in the company of a few people (who hold opinions I respect greatly), I asked a truly ho-hum topical question, “So, does the COP15 lot have the climate science thing settled – are they in posession of the truth, are they working with the unreasonable openness and candour that is the hallmark of truth?”. I asked this knowing full well, I would probably recieve a lot of opinion (because the science bit seems to be worded in such obtuse terms that very few understand it – by ‘it’, I mean the scientific peer reviewed facts (i.e. the truth)’). In a way that is uncustomary for me, I decided to shut up and listen. Here’s what was said . . . .
Everyone – bar none, seemed to conclude along the lines of the following statement, or words to the effect :- “one of the biggest frustrations we have is that there seems to be a distinct lack of emphasis and motivation toward telling the public (and business) the whole truth on climate change”, followed by – “the biggest frustration we have today posing as truth and information is a constant stream of ‘balanced’ rhetoric. What the world needs today is truth around climate change, . . . . truth not balance.”
Most people agreed that the distorted need to ‘balance’ the truth is by far the biggest hurdle in understanding the issues. Fox News owns the ‘fair and balanced’ term, even the BBC news site abounds with a nonsensical ‘balance’ where we are constantly expected to side with the skeptic or the counter – how is one ever to know what is the truth – see here http://bit.ly/6cGtTL
Until we have the truth, the unplugged, unmitigated and wholly unreasonable truth I suppose we’ll never agree about what true trouble is and what to do about it.
I suppose that poses another query, “Does balancing the truth lead to a pack of lies, and how can we tell?”