Talisman has now entered the world permanentlycollective imaginationEspecially after the two-year pandemic: “knowledge” and “experience”. At every turn we are told, and we in turn tell ourselves, that Solution From every problem that will come to us from “science” and that – to better honor a role or to carry out a task correctly – “competence” is needed. Now let’s ask ourselves why science and efficiency do not always work, so to speak, but only in interrupted form.
They are fine when they get along with a certain person See the world, a unified “common feeling” regarding certain issues, a certain “unique” idea about certain topics. On the other hand, if it is placed in questionable positionThey suddenly lose their curative and healing powers and disappear from the radar of the media view. Let’s take a concrete example with one of the most popular and “indisputable” topics today: Anthropogenic climate change. A phenomenon that certainly leads to the necessary and preliminary “scientific competence” to be dealt with in a serious and rational manner.
Well, in order to stick with the prefixes we started from, we have to be very concerned withopinion Some scholars with confirmed and selected experience specialty. Here are some of the names: Franco Battaglia Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Modena. Uberto Crescenti Professor Emeritus of Applied Geology at the University of Chieti Pescara; Mario Giaccio, Professor of Energy Economics at the University of Chieti Pescara; Enrico Micade, Professor of Geography, Physics and Geomorphology at the University of Chieti Pescara; Giuliano Panza Professor of Seismology, National Academy of Sciences, University of Trieste; Alberto Prestenzi, Professor of Applied Geology at La Sapienza University in Rome; Franco Brodi, Professor of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Ferrara; Nicola Scavetta, Professor of Atmospheric Physics and Oceanography at the University of Naples.
Are you convinced of the titles and qualifications of the aforementioned stars? We can quietly admit that their “scientific” preparation and “experience” is proof of that bomb? We can give them enough credibility in a possible discussion, for example, with Greta Thunberg? The questions are clearly rhetorical, if not sarcastic, and lead us directly to a description of an interesting, and indeed “useful” initiative by the aforementioned academics: Press release of 24 February 2023, addressed to the Prime Minister, Georgia Meloni. The short but very clear text contains statements capable of making a difference, literally, in everything many ordinary people think they “know” on this point.
L’beginning Really shocking: “Given thatclimate emergency that anthropogenic emissions are an emergency without a scientific basis, and given that its proponents have repeatedly withdrawn from the scientific confrontation (…)”. than 0.9% and less than 9% of global emissions. the emissions around the world increased by 60% compared to 1990 levels and only the two countries, China and India, which emit more than 40% of the world’s emissions, are implementing energy policies that, for all their proclamation, are in fact aimed atSignificant increase in emissions“.
Finally, here’s the conclusion: “We Clientel Italy We therefore ask, in this regard, that the Italian government make its voice heard at the European level. Of course we repeat this challenge to scientific comparison that Climate emergency advocates anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have always been brought up.” Now let us try to pull the strings of discourse. If we agree on the fact that “science” and “competence” are the prerequisites without which no problem can be faced, and if we agree on the reverse scientific method For the authors of the above statement, they automatically arise, as they say, some questions.
Because they not only question but deny the cautionary rhetoric Climate change Caused by the man? Again: why can’t they find one Adequate lights On the general media? And finally: why catastrophic counterpart Will he withdraw from the debate that is the salt and leaven of the scientific method (and progress)? Given what is at stake (the fate of our economies, our standard of living, and even the world at large) perhaps some more scholarly and competent voices should be given. space. Or maybe we should at least understand what are the hidden reasons (interests?) This does not happen. Greta should not live alone with the story of climate change.
“Infuriatingly humble social media buff. Twitter advocate. Writer. Internet nerd.”
