The nice thing about engaging in politics while running is you work out your anger quickly and without upset. If you engage too loudly or passionately, your companion/opponent may edge away or pick up speed or become distracted by the passing natural attractions. In the event, no harm is done, and you both feel better for the exercise and the ridded emotions.
On the topic of global warming, Bob has made some progress over the past 5 years and is now at level three of the five step climb which are 1) the climate is not warming; 2) even if it is warming this may be good not bad since we now have access to the mineral resources of the Arctic, etc.; 3) it is warming, I agree this is probably not good, but there is no reliable evidence it is caused by humans; 4) it is warming, it is bad, it is caused by humans but there is nothing we can do about it or we will become non-competitive if we try fix the problem; 5) I agree, let’s try fix it but isn’t it too late?
A frequent rejoinder by Bob is that the scientific community is in cahoots and cannot be trusted.
And this is where “organized skepticism” enters the picture. My current MOOC ( massive open online course) at Coursera is titled “Science from Superheroes to Global Warming” and intends to make the layperson (me) knowledgeable about the scientific process. Organized skepticism is the process where the scientific community aggressively reviews each other’s work to find errors. This may be done in the pursuit of a higher truth or simply because we are human, competitive and egoistic and if someone else claims to have taken a big step forward our first instincts may not be to congratulate but to find fault. I hate having to say to myself “now why didn’t I think of that?”
The laws of the universe apply everywhere the same (uniform), are unchanging (invariant), are measurable (discoverable) and, most importantly, experiments demonstrating these laws must be repeatable both by the person doing the experiment and others (reproducible, replicable). So, unlike the social sciences, scientific evidence must be provided to support a theory and the community will challenge the data and the theory. This rigorous process ensures that fraud cannot be perpetrated.
So when the scientific community agrees that global warming is occurring and is caused by humans, it is unlikely that it is in “cahoots”.
At this critical point in my narration to Bob he exclaimed “did you see that?” and, as our heads simultaneously swivelled, I realized once again how hard it is to make progress on global warming.