"Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo or surgery."The news that mammograms may not really help isn't all that shocking for anyone that has been around for a few turns of the earth. We have seen coffee, wine, various fats, grains and a host of other food items shift back and forth from being identified as near certain causes of early demise to being proverbial fountains of youth. If your product is on the outs, just wait around, it may be an elixir soon ... or vice versa.
The proud claim of science was once that it was not, nor could be "settled". The settled was the domain of religion, which held claims on that which is eternal, vs science which was confined to the physical, the temporal, that in which change is certain and "there is nothing new under the sun". (or at least REALLY new ... each generation and each new fad is SURE that what they have found is "new")
On mammograms, our haste to "do something" is entirely understandable -- we all have at least a mother who we love dearly, and breast cancer is a very real risk. We WANT to be able to do SOMETHING to feel more secure, and if cancer does come to call, we want to be able to say "we did all we could".
Is that motivation the same with climate? "Well, we HAVE to do SOMETHING!"??
I don't believe so, I believe it is more the case that having a religion is critical to man, and post 60's, a lot of younger folks have been looking for a "new one", so in Charles words, they have gone "whoring after new gods".
But whoring is whoring, and the gods must be appeased. So if California burns, you send your high priest (in carbon -belching Air Force One, but never mind) to the bone-dry land to offer up, on behalf of the repentant congregation, a $1 billion burnt offering called a “climate resilience fund.”'via Blog this'