"I'm right and YOU'RE WRONG!

How many times have you heard that?  "Well, I'm right and you're wrong."  OR, "I don't need to change, I'm perfect." 

I love a good debate.  Now, take a step back and note that word I used.  Debate, not arguement. 

I consider myself at least somewhat versed in the issues.  I'm not an expert, nor do I claim to be.  Somewhat versed (informed.) 

Care to debate?  GREAT!  Let's keep it civil.  Because in keeping it civil you show that you acknowledge that the person has beliefs different than yours and that you're willing to listen to them.  And perhaps ... just perhaps, each of the participants might learn something.

But then we come to people on both sides of the political divide.  Those that are "perfect" (in their own words!) and who are always right (again, in their own words.)  "Global Warming?  It's manmade.  Entirely." 

"But what about the fact that four other planets besides the Earth are also warming?" 

 "PROPAGANDA!!" 

 "But it's..." 

"NO, It's not true.  Global Warming is entirely manmade." 

"Is it just barely possible that it might not be entirely manmade?"

"No.  Global Warming is entirely manmade."  (If you can't tell, I've already had this arguement.  Sadly, it did turn into one.  (Like I said in an earlier post, I'm not perfect either.))

Yes, there are people like that out there. 

Folks, I'm 41 years old and I've done some seriously stupid stuff in my years.  Seriously.  I'm not perfect, I never have been.  And, I never will be.

Is it possible that I'm wrong?  Oh, yes.  I've been wrong before and I will be again.  I neither doubt nor deny that. 

But too many folks on both sides of the issues are stating that they are right, cannot be wrong, and that to disagree with them is "...a crime." (Seriously.  There are people out there who are trying to make it a criminal offense to disagree with the view that Global Warming is entirely manmade.)

But at this point, we need to take a step back.  Scientists have been wrong before.  The prevailing view used to be that Meteor Crater in Arizona had been caused by an eruption of steam, perhaps caused by volcanism which is common in that area.

It wasn't until Eugene Shoemaker proved Daniel Barringer's earlier hypothesis that the cause was known to be an impact event.  Dr. Shoemaker proved the 1903 hypothesis of impact in 1960.  That's 57 years.

The earliest pilots had been told that if they hit the sound barrier, they'd be killed.  Then-Lt. "Chuck" Yeager broke the "barrier" in 1947. 

We'd always thought that invisibility was impossible.  Two years ago, it was done.  That's right, at Imperial College in London, they caused an electron to become invisible.  Granted, it was just an electron but the implications are profound.

We've always thought that quantum computers were impossible.  Enter Orion.  It's in the lab, and to be fair its best calculation to date is 3 x 5 = 15, but it is a working quantum computer.  And it did that calculation across five electrons.

Get the point?  Scientists have been wrong before.  It's the good ones that admit it.

Why then, can't people on both sides of the political divide admit that maybe, just maybe, they too might be wrong? 

It used to be that if you disagreed with the great thinkers of earlier eras that you were wrong.  Disagree with Aristotle?  You're wrong!  Disagree with Ptolemy?  You're due to be burned at the stake.  Heretic.

With the problems currently facing us, we don't need such outmoded and (dare I say it) archaic thinking.  You could even call it "Dark Age" thinking. 

We need answers.  We don't need politics.