I find myself flabbergasted by this story: Warnings on WMD ‘Fabricator’ Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says. I will ignore the politics of this issue and speak of a broader issue. This line stuck out in particular: “Drumheller, who is writing a book about his experiences, described in extensive interviews repeated attempts to alert top CIA officials to problems with the defector, code-named Curveball, in the days before the Powell speech” [emphasis mine]. Instantly, alarm bells are raised in my head. How can I know to trust this source? How do I know this ex-CIA aide isn’t exaggerating his story in order to write a good book?
Then again, with all the intelligence failure going on, how can I trust George Tenet or John E. McLaughlin? How do I know they’re not just trying to cover their asses?
Who do I trust? I find myself wanting to trust neither. At this point, I am struck with skeptic’s paralysis. I can believe neither side and therefore I know nothing. I don’t know what to believe, but I want to believe something. I can’t just ignore the issue, can I?
The answer, however, can be a yes. If you answer yes, then skeptic’s paralysis evolves into a worse disease: apathy. I can know nothing, so I will do nothing.
I find myself mired in the same situation with global warming. (Excuse me, global “climate change.”) Frankly, I don’t know who to believe. I am not fond of Al Gore. I am also not fond of the writer of Jurassic Park who supposedly “debunks” global warming. Supposedly, there is a scientific consensus, but how do I know I can trust those who say there is a consensus any more than I can trust those who say there is still a debate. I hear that there’s more and more evidence, but I have no idea what this evidence is, so I cannot base an opinion based on the concept of evidence.
So, you say, find the evidence. Yet, I’m not a scientist. I can be easily fooled into believing either position. Plus, the advocates of both sides are prone to exaggeration. That only exacerbates my skeptic’s paralysis. I want to trust the scientists, but how can I trust these people to predict the weather years and years into the future when they can’t predict the weather two weeks from now?
Even with that silly problem out of the way, it doesn’t end my skeptic’s paralysis. First, I can’t trust evidence I don’t understand and which can be easily manipulated. There is no way around it: I need to trust an authority. But then, I don’t know which authority to trust. I must rely on another authority to direct me to the proper authorities. How can I trust that person?
I cannot trust anyone, but I want to trust someone.
Luckily, I think my problem can be solved. I trust television, and the Discovery Channel is going to have a special on climate change. I think I will trust that. After all, I trust the MythBusters.
Still looming, though, is the even bigger issue, hinted at in the beginning: I don’t trust know whom to trust in my government.
It’s not a matter of predicting the weather at all, Shawn. It’s a matter of studying weather patterns over time past.
Scientists have reliable data (from ice cores) of global weather patterns dating back 2 million years. And less reliable, but still solid, data (from the plant fossil record) that goes back tens of millions of years.
From the past 2 million years, a pattern of global warming and cooling can clearly be discerned.
The key fact is this: over the last 200 years — during which we have had reliable weather records — there has been a radical increase in CO2 in the atmosphere beyond anything in the past 2 million years. It has been the highest it has ever been, and here’s the part that should concern the level-thinking lay-person: the trend continues upward.
The consensus among scientists now is that this trend is attributable to human activity from the industrial age onwards.
I don’t think this is a difficult issue to believe in at all, not requiring such a large leap of ‘faith’ in science and the findings of modern scientists (religious and ideological faith is far more nebulous, in sharp contrast).
It is well and good to have a skeptic’s eye on the world: but you better be able to see the forest beyond the trees. Very soon, it will be evident to any sentient human that something is desperately wrong, when crippling droughts and mega-storms begin to be the norm.