Get your dirty politics out of my science.

I would really like someone to help me out here. How has concern for the natural environment become defined by political affiliations? Why is climate change considered a "Liberal Myth"? What makes it political enough to polarize society? Is the realization that our actions may have consequences limited to politics and political pundits?

The recent hacked emails of the Climatic Research Unit (whose link is sadly down) have been repeated and dissected to use as "spin" which devalues any information may actually have been included. Arguably this seems to be being accomplished for primarily political reasons (in the US). It makes me a little sad honestly.

I love science and data and find myself slightly repulsed by information that has been regurgitated for my consumption. Which is why I was initially excited by the leaked emails, "Finally," I thought "we can get some nuts and bolts data." which of course we didn't yet. Or at least I can't find any. I can find tons on what some talking head in Tulsa thinks about what the "liberal elites" want him to think and his reaction to what the "informed republican sources" that have dissected the emails for him want him to react but those aren't voices I am willing to listen to. Either of them. Which is probably the entire problem to begin with.

Scientific research and our federal reactions to them are viewed primarily though a political lens. It's either an "us against them" or a "them against us", very rarely is it seen as "us for ourselves by being against ourselves" which quite honestly is what it needs to come down to. There is an awful lot of spin put into what our research is telling us. For instance if manmade climate change is real (and I admit here, I believe it is) then that should be an entirely separate issue from anything else. So if our researchers and scientists are telling us this, then our belief upon it should be entirely separate from our reaction to what it means. Just because we don't like the idea of cap and trade, or energy taxes, or clean coal, or wind turbines, or global warming doesn't matter, what matters is the acceptance of the interpretation of the data.

It is then how we react from that acceptance that can become political, however when you hitch your actionable cart to a disingenuous horse based upon your political affiliations it makes you sound like a crazy person, and not crazy in that "you so crazy!" way but in the ramblings of a lunatic way. The argument needs to shift from whether or not science is acceptable to you (since you aren't doing the science you should listen to what the people who have trained for it and practiced it are telling you.) to what can be reasonably and responsibly done in order to affect our future based upon the science now.

Seriously. I am getting really sick of people telling me they do or don't believe this or that because of what they read or heard on some vapid source information (which I could list but would rather just preface by saying that anytime anyone attempts to quote something they heard on an extremist talk show as supporting fact I typically walk away before they can finish - it isn't worth my time). Lets get the facts out there and be very clear about them, apolitically, and THEN we can tear each other apart. Let's get to the truth first.

I am very interested in the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference and hope some clear information and sources come out of it. Enough so to tamper the crazy talk that we have had to listen to for the past (eight? twelve? more?) years.

This rant is brought to you by a designer who thinks that designing smart buildings and cities to maximize efficiency is not only nice for the environment (which I love to be able to live in) but for the pocketbook by minimizing long term operational, material and health costs. Crazy eh? The $ can be used for good.