"How do you talk to someone who doesn't believe in climate change?"
That was actually the first sentence to an introduction to a TED talk (screencap above), and it illustrates a big part of the problem with Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) fanatics. Their condescending need to preach at the rest of us is annoying, as is their conviction that we could be won over to their side.
First of all, climate changes. Very few people seriously doubt that. The Earth has been both a snowball and a sauna in the past. I completely "believe in" the evidence that this has happened and will continue to happen. That's not what they are talking about when they say "doesn't believe in climate change".
They are talking about the fact that intelligent, informed people don't necessarily worship with their cult of AGCC belief and their preferred social agenda, and they can't bear it. That's it.
The best way to "talk" to someone who "doesn't believe in climate change" is ... don't. Stay quiet. But if you can't mind your own business, and you ignorantly (and unwisely) broach the subject, maybe you could at least listen to the reasons why they aren't in your cult. If you can't do even that much, then drop the religious devotion to your cult before opening your mouth. No one wants to hear it.
Second, it would help if you would recognize that what you are promoting isn't science. AGCC believerism is partly science; mostly collectivist politics. When you mix politics with science (by funding it through theft, for example) what results is less science than politics. This brand of politicized "climate science" cherry picks data, relies on completely unreliable models (computerized guesswork which is never, NEVER reliable), ignores economics, and violates ethics-- all of which would need to be taken into account for AGCC believerism to be credible enough to be taken seriously. They ignore all the inconvenient factors, which is why they aren't credible, no matter how much they posture and preach. No matter how much they try to talk down to those who aren't falling for their violently imposed "solutions".
I believe the Earth's climate changes over time. I accept that it is possible human activities have changed the rate of change by adding atmospheric carbon dioxide. I don't doubt there is some amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide which would be trouble. I acknowledge that it is possible, although unlikely, that this climate change is entirely negative, with no benefits at all. I am more open-minded and scientifically oriented on this topic than any AGCC believer. And yet I'm not one of them and can't support them in any way. That offends their feelings.
I doubt their "solutions" are solutions. I know they aren't ethical-- more government control never is. If they get their way more problems will be created, yet they won't be held accountable. You can't let the perpetrator of the greatest amount of environmental damage-- The State-- tell everyone else what they are allowed to do. Not on this planet or any other. Denying this reality is science denial.
I am completely in favor of businesses and individuals finding ways to reduce pollution of every sort. It's dumb to foul your own nest. I am not in favor of imposing "solutions" at the barrel of a government gun, no matter what someone imagines will happen otherwise.
_______________
Reminder: I could really use some help.
I don't believe that the Earth's climate changes over time, I accept it as proven fact from the geological record, ice core samples, historical data and all that good stuff. I don't think that Earth is getting warmer because of what Humans have done, and that too has nothing to do with belief. If anyone wants to doubt the fact that the Sun's output changes over time, as we are circling a friendly little variable star, all they need to do is look at the ice caps on Mars and how they fluctuate over time. Not even the most smog-belching factory, or mightiest Terran volcano, can reach that!
ReplyDeleteExcellent post, cuts thru the false dichotomy.
ReplyDeleteThe climate change nonsense is being approached all wrong.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, there must be a scientific basis, something credible and realistic, before claiming or doing anything. Secondly, any actions to ensure good management of our planet is in the best interest of everyone. Any fool can see this. Thus there is no need to lie cheat and steal or force anything. Whether it is man made or not, or a natural heating/cooling cycle, or whatever, it effects everyone. Start there.
Start by presenting the findings and data to the world. "Hey everyone, attention please, ..we've been amassing a data base and analyzing things, and we see a potential problem here. We're still trying to figure it out, but the data is very compelling, and it needs to be addressed. We could use some assistance in figuring this thing out and finding solutions."
Instead, they are being dishonest and arrogant about it and using politics to jam it down people's throats, fighting and arguing about it...just like so many other things are handled.
Say, hypothetically, we handle it right and determine that indeed the earth is warming, that it's a natural cycle that we can't control, that we have about a 200-400 years before it starts becoming unlivable for x number of species, including ourselves. Then the answer is to get ready now, to start brainstorming and implementing good ideas to benefit future generations and preserve whatever we can until the next cooling cycle.
Say, hypothetically, we discover that it is indeed man-made, the root causes being X Y and Z, show everyone. Whether there are laws or not, people will begin to be intolerant of anyone who does X Y or Z. It would be similar to being on a ship at sea and some asshole is below deck goofing off with a loaded rocket launcher. ...or like that guy who had an explosive in his shoe on the plane. As soon as the passengers saw him try to light it, they ganged up and subdued him, tied him up using their belts and neck ties.
"Hey asshole, you need to change the way your factory does things. We have some good ideas that can even save you money, and are willing to assist you in any way we can, but you gotta stop doing it like that because you're part of the problem."
Very good post. You are far more of a "scientist" than most of the people who practice it as a profession and thus, regrettably in 21st century america, are the subservient lapdogs of the entity directing most funding for science; the State. Since "he who pays the piper, calls the tune" they predictably sit up and beg for the 'treats" master dispenses, and willingly sing it's tune. And the State's 'tune' has never been in any other interest than for itself.
ReplyDeleteI accept that it is possible human activities have changed the rate of change by adding atmospheric carbon dioxide. I don't doubt there is some amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide which would be trouble.
ReplyDeleteCarbon dioxide concentration was much MUCH higher in the past than it is today, and the earth didn't seem to suffer. It was three times as high as now during the time of the dinosaurs, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere . And a lot higher than that earlier on. As near as I can make out, today's hysteria about CO2 is complete and total nonsense, and the earth and all its inhabitants would benefit from some return to a higher concentration than we have now.
Well stated.
ReplyDeleteObserve how the hysterical panic to OH GOD, GET SOMETHING LEGISLATED is really a race to beat starker evidence of the next cooling cycle, which began over a decade ago.