One of the most difficult tasks in either a simple or a complex world is to discern what we know, what objective and analytical bases we have for the strongly held opinions and conclusions we have already reached. And since many of us already have our minds made up, no amount of information that discredits these ideas and opinions will typically cause us to change our position. Like the blind men and the elephant, many perspectives attach to a given set of data, which can be twisted, squeezed, sanitized, shaped, misinterpreted, and abused to support whatever opinion we have already reached. We tend not to listen to opposing viewpoints, because we "know" ahead of time that these viewpoints are warped, distorted, tainted, and "wrong."
All of this conundrum, made even more complex by the mutltitude of actors, data sources, "authorities," political viewpoints, and ideologies, leads to contentious debate, righteous indignation, absolutely certain conclusions that do not brook opposition, and wrong-headedness. Such richness of the stew contributes endlessly to delays and contention in formulation of public policy and passing legislation. Now, once again, the climate change gurus have reared their heads. The debate is reminiscent of the middle ages, when science was quieted in the name of religion. I'll trade you my climate expert for three aces and raise you one. Every one who opposes climate legislation that will protect our universe has indisputable evidence from an absolutely correct authority who has three Ph.D.s, two centuries of experience in climate and meteorology, and played quarterback for a Super Bowl team. The unwillingness to go beyond our own initial and rigidly held beliefs remains an albatross in moving forward in this area so critical to our survival as a planet.
