I am not surprised about this video. Clearly, Bush didn't want oil to be regulated for various interests that are interrelated both politically and economically. Our society is just too dependent on oil and it drives our whole economy. Supporting anything that required urgency which limits the burning of fossil fuels would have created chaos. The alternative approach is a moderate one that relies on technology that slowly makes things more efficient. Yet the scientists said that this is an urgent situation and there is a great danger if we don't take action now.
I don't think that it is right to label science as not sufficiently reliable especially when they know more about it than anyone else does on this planet. Those scientists are the ones who have devoted their lives to studying climate change. It does not seem ethical or legal to limit what a scientist has to say about something that effects the entire world. It is indeed a form of free speech. I don't understand how the White House's review process was able to get away with rewriting the science. In fact, I have never heard of such a screening process when it comes to a report or press release involving NASA scientists. No wonder they are angry, as I would be too. It makes sense when you begin to examine what the players in this game have to gain. For example, what does the scientist have to gain by over exaggerating a climate report versus what that particular lawyer had to gain? Turns out the lawyer was a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute. No wonder he edited out some of the words that were in the report. His ethics must've went out the door when he took on this assignment because when a lawyer is practicing law (in the sense of representing people and making a case for them) they are not supposed to represent someone when there is a conflict of interest. In other words, the lawyer cannot represent someone if he/she has a financial interest or can gain in some kind of other way. I suppose that since he was a "former" lobbyist for the institution is what allowed this one to slip through. I only wonder if he had held stocks in any type of petroleum company at the time he edited those reports. Maybe then he would be in trouble because he would have had an interest in keeping the reports from potentially harming the petroleum companies. Then again, he is a lawyer so I am sure he found some way of limiting his liability for what he had done and it was all legal somehow.
The wording is very important in every document when it comes to what lawyers do. In fact, it is something that I have been learning in my law classes. Every word has a meaning, and you have to be careful with how you word things. For instance, the word "may" leaves a choice. It may, or may not happen. It is not definitive. Yet when you use the word "shall" that means there is no choice. It is a definitive word meaning that you will do what it says. I am not surprised to learn that in the video the word "is" was changed to "may be." The word "is" is like the word "shall" in terms of the words meaning something absolute. Lawyers are taught two different standards of proof. They are beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of the evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever. This standard represents something which is unquestionable, that there is not one single contrary piece of evidence. This is the most difficult standard to prove. The latter means that the evidence proves 51% or more that someone is likely guilty. This is the standard that leaves room for doubt. The lawyer changed the word "is" to "maybe" because the topic of climate change had not been debated beyond a reasonable doubt. To this day there are many people with conflicting thoughts about it and many who deny it altogether. To use the word "is" means that there is absolutely no doubt that global warming is threatening. To change it to the word "may be" means that we realize it is threatening but we don't realize to what extent so that's the better word to use. The funny thing is that we can't definitively know to what extent until we reach the point we are able to look back and see it. For example, when there is a hurricane we realize that it's going to be disastrous if it hits people's homes, but can we ever really know exactly to what extent a hurricane is threatening? I don't think we can. I think it is the same thing with global warming. We can predict that if we delay our actions any further that something threatening will happen but we can't exactly know how threatening it will be. This is the loophole, and it is caused from that aspect of uncertainty. It is
also where the play on words occurs. I think that the two fields of study collided in a bad way.
When everyone with power has the ability to rewrite science it makes you realize how dangerous a thing that is. I am not in any way against government because I know why government in necessary. We need laws in order for our society to run well and people need those guidelines both for their own good and for the good of others. However, we should always remember that people in government are people like you and me. As humans, we have the potential to lie, to cheat, to steal, to abuse, etc. I suppose that is our only weakness, that we are not perfect at all times. Don't take your eyes away.
No comments:
Post a Comment