This Is Probably An Interesting Blog (but in the offhand chance it isn't…)

Charlie Brooker unveils his plan to save mankind at The Guardian. It’s actually pretty commonsensical:

[We] fail to take painful measures in the present that could ease our existence in the future, because we think they’re too arduous – unless you’re a spluttering contrarian, in which case you think the whole climate change thing is a load of trumped-up phooey anyway, and that all scientists are shifty, self-serving exaggerators, apart from the brave handful who agree with you. Hey, I’m no scientist. I’m not an engineer either, but if I asked 100 engineers whether it was safe to cross a bridge, and 99 said no, I’d probably try to find another way over the ravine rather than loudly siding with the underdog and arguing about what constitutes a consensus while trundling across in my Hummer.

Ah, but there’s money to be made in sowing seeds of doubt. Brooker uses the example of exercise and how, though we understand the benefits and have seen the studies showing how physical activity can lower risk of heart disease and other illness, still nearly 60 percent of individuals refuse to exercise. But what if it’s all a big conspiracy by the shoe companies who stand to profit from the masses lacing up their jogging shoes?

That’s generally how I choose to think about the debate surround global warming. There was a time when there was such a thing as “doctor recommended cigarettes,” meaning every faction and interest has their experts on retainer. So how are we to be sure of anything? Consensus and the peer-reviewed method seem to be a good place to start. Granted, some folks will refuse to acknowledge science in the face of calamity, but I’m not concerned about those few patches of misery. I’m more interested in how we form our public policy, and that involves experts, consensus and, well, trust.

I’m not sure a paranoid humanity has it in them to survive the long haul.

(via)