Editorial

Finding common ground key to preserving Earth

Monday, April 21, 2014

Most baby boomers were raised with a certain reverence for science. Their parents had just witnessed the invention of the atomic bomb, and the boomers themselves marvels like man's first trip to the moon and technology that links individuals worldwide with handheld computing power -- smart phones -- that would have been the envy of scientists working on the Manhattan Project.

But science no longer carries the weight it once did.

According to an Associated Press-GfK poll, scientists have their work cut out for them if they hope to influence public policy, especially in some issues.

Only 4 percent of us doubt that smoking causes cancer, 6 percent doubt mental illness is a medical condition that affects the brain, and 8 percent doubt there's a genetic code in our cells.

But 15 percent doubt childhood vaccines are safe and effective, nearly 40 percent doubt the earth is warming because of manmade heat-trapping gasses, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or that life evolved through natural selection, although most were at least somewhat confident in each of those concepts.

A slight majority of us question the Big Bang theory.

While some religious leaders see no conflict with biblical accounts of creation, confidence in evolution the Big Bang, the age of the Earth and climate change decline sharply as faith in a supreme being rises, according the poll.

"Most often, values and beliefs trump science" when they conflict, said Alan Leshner, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Politics plays a major role as well; Democrats are more apt than Republicans to express confidence in evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the earth and climate change.

But citizens of all stripes and political persuasions should be able to on some very basic issues, conservation of natural resources chief among them.

In preparation for Tuesday's Earth Day observance, Gov. Dave Heineman and the Nebraska Cattlemen named the Pelster Family of Ericson as recipients of the 2014 Nebraska Leopold Conservation Award.

The $10,000 award, accompanied by a Leopold crystal, is named in honor of world-renowned conservationist Aldo Leopold.

The Pelster Angus Ranch, situated along Cedar River in Garfield County, has been in the family for six generations.

"The Pelster family carries on a longstanding family commitment to ranching practices that benefit the land, wildlife and all of us," said Brent Haglund, president of the Sand County Foundation, which, with Cargill, present the award annually.

Resources, specifically Republican River water, irrigation and conservation measures that have reduced flow into Kansas, are of the utmost concern in Southwest Nebraska.

While ground and surface irrigators, regulators and Nebraska and Kansas officials find sources of disagreement on important issues, the effort to preserve natural resources for the benefit of all should not be one of them.

Comments
View 6 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Climate blame "belief" was modern day witch burning.

    The next time you look your own children square in the eyes and tell them to "believe" the science then "believe" that science has been 95% certain for 32 years and have never "believed" as much as you do. Your eagerness for this misery to have been real is uncivilized and absolutely sickening

    -- Posted by mememine69 on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 4:19 PM
  • We should not take more water from the aquifer than Mother Nature returns or generations to come will really be left dry

    -- Posted by dennis on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 6:37 PM
  • Dennis, have you ever tried to make a living off of the land? If we are to put the ogallala aquifer back to its precivilized state we need to return the land back to its original state which would include removing all terracing, pasture structures, dams, trees etc. (Yes trees, they are huge water users and if the past generations are to be believed, you could walk from mccook to north platte and never see a tree). I also might add, if we do not pump the water to feed our families there might not be any future generations of farmers in southwest nebraska. We are not in favor of using more than we need but we have mortages to pay and families to feed. we need someone in the legislature that realizes this.

    -- Posted by quick13 on Tue, Apr 22, 2014, at 7:00 PM
  • Is CO2 even a real grcoouse gas? Water vapor is. Our planet always has neat ways to restore balance, as we are seeing it today. All this hysteria can be traced to "scientists" finding a religion they can believe in. The warming cycles we have experienced corelate with the suns cycles. Provable.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Wed, Apr 23, 2014, at 8:28 AM
  • quick13 I do realize that we must have water to maintain our current economy. I also realize that the 3 different NDR's permit differing amounts of groundwater to be pumped and that is a concern. That surface and groundwater users are at odds. I realize that producers were told that terracing, dams and trees were needed and now they might be part of the problem. I realize that most producers are very good stewards of the land. I also realize that pumping at the current rate has been a huge part of the reason we are in such peril. More of the same is not the answer. I believe we need someone in the legislature that realizes this. I applaud LB 1098 as a good starting point.

    -- Posted by dennis on Wed, Apr 23, 2014, at 10:53 AM
  • "Most often, values and beliefs trump science" when they conflict, said Alan Leshner

    Sadly the chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science must believe that science conflicts with values and beliefs. He isn't promoting science, but rather his own personal ideology and labeling the such as science.

    Last time I checked, influencing public policy was not one of the steps of the scientific method; a method which has a prescribed purpose to remove bias from observation, not reinforce it.

    Modern day "media" science sadly has become: form the political conclusion first, second find persuasive evidence to support biased conclusion.

    -- Posted by shallal on Thu, Apr 24, 2014, at 12:45 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: