1  2  Next

A long time ago when I was new to CKA I was a climate change denier. I regurgitated all kinds of studies, quotes and facts from the internet to support my opinion that the world climate was not changing and if it were; well then by golly it was any number of other natural factors because clearly climate has been occurring since the Earth formed and will continue to do so long after man is extinct.

I've changed my mind 180 degrees and freely admit it and unlike other converts, don't pretend I've always felt this way. To be clear there was no brilliant scientific thesis or argument that had me writhing in the grasp of reason. I changed my opinion because of good old fashioned common sense which boils down to these three considerations:

1. Science, journalism and prit'near everything else is being drawn along political or religious lines these days. I don't like it but it is the way it is and this entrenching of camps and ideologies probably at least in part has something to do with the internet, the spread of information of all truths and falsehoods and the new found desire to protect our own truths over listening to others.

Having said that, when 97% of global eggheads proclaim anthropogenic climate change as certain fact how am I any less deliberately ignorant than the Pakistanis who murder polio vaccination workers because they know it is a plot to sterilise Muslims or the faked moon landing/911 was an inside job according to conspiracy theorists who know the government is misleading the people.

How can I chastise Holocaust deniers for ignoring or dismissing historical facts if I do it with climate change? How can I cite scientific reports when debating lefties on the safety of GMO foods when I dismiss the same government and university research centers while the liberals ironically in turn dismiss the 9 out of 10 scientific consensus of safety of the GMO food?

Am I seriously supposed to pretend it is fact that God plopped us down here in Her image and ignore the anthropological evidence to the contrary simply because so many people believe in Santa they want to kill you or condemn you to eternal damnation for suggesting otherwise?

I know enough now to know I don't know squat and need to rely on those who do and not those who think they do. At 97% of the scientific you'll never get a higher consensus period.

2. If you have even a rudimentary knowledge of science you are aware that most researchers believe we have entered the Anthropocene. This means that mankind now has the greatest impact on shaping the planet and this should scare the shit out of you if you care about anyone more than your own selfish ass.

From species extinction to changing the landscape with our bridges, mining, and dams to influencing evolution as we see urban rodents increase intelligence, spiders develop different vision and bird wingspans shorten to adapt to urban flight. We have taken whole forests and turned them to farmland. We have burned giant holes in the ozone layer and altered more than half the surface of the planet and the oceans soak up so much CO2 they are changing PH and becoming sterile while human activity accounts for 2x more soil movement than natural erosion, wind, earthquakes etc. We can bring back species from extinction and will create the next dominate species on this planet.

Few would dispute the above impact man has had on the environment yet large enough groups of people are so deliberately ignorant or ideologically blind they believe our effects on the planet end at it's climate. Well city boy, let me tell you it is 5-7 degrees colder outside the city in winter and about 1-3 degrees warmer in summer in my neck of the woods.

3. Things have changed. Weather has changed. Animals have changed. You see, if you put down your xbox and talk with the elders they will tell you of periods of hot or cold that lasted decades or dry spells and wet spells that went on longer than normal. Decades with lots of snow and years with almost no snow so nothing unusual there agreed.

However, nowhere in the oral record of the elders, no where in the recent scientific record, no where in the record of the pioneers do we see the movement of animals to areas where those animals never existed before or plants and insects that were never seen in these latitudes ever suddenly now appearing. Things are changing and it's not just the loss of biodiversity I have witnessed in my own life. It's migratory patterns and fauna out of whack.

Climate change denial seems to be a Conservative urban thing. These folks live in sterile environments where weather, animals and biodiversity have little impact on their lives. I've noticed most rural Conservatives, those closer to nature such as farmers and trappers are more concerned about climate change and few believe it is natural or simply not occurring.

John Oliver sums it up:

   

Friend, brace yourself. The dog is on his way and will try to bore you to death for being a nonbeliever. Good luck.

   

I'm pretty sure I can handle it.

   

I believe you,

   

Frankly, you're starting to worry me.. I'm waiting for you to start a thread inviting all the worthy to join your new church.

   

In time one side's stance of today will be proved right and one wrong because nothing that is likely to happen is going to make the amount of CO2 reduce.

I predict the most likely outcome will be a change in the goalposts of the CO2 issue from the return to pre industrial levels, to something like a per capital CO2 max emission goal.

A new goal that I might add is in conflict with the current narrative. But a goal that will happen over the years as it becomes clear that 'they' are not going to get their pre industrial levels no matter how much 'they' try and convince people.

I also predict that the CO2 and climate change standard will slowly shift over time so that the change from the mid 00s global warming panic to whatever the future will be shall be a smooth seamless transition. Leading to no clear failure point for the GW advocates.

I can already here people saying "Well back in 2006 people said it would be 'game over' for the planet if we continued on the path we were on in <select number of years here> and we did keep that path, but things are hardly game over now."

"Back then we were still refining our understanding of the climate change and our current models show that we need to keep our current actions in place and even accelerate them, because in <select range of years far enough into the future to be meaningless to more people> the climate will hit a tipping point and bah bah bah, panic mongering, fear, our children will be the victims."

   

The Church of Climatology. Nice ring to it and far more real than any other religion.

   

   

From my perspective it is already game over for the world as we know it if you measure these things beyond your own few decades left on the planet because if we actually started trying in earnest now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions like CO2 we'll still likely hit 700ppm CO2 in the atmosphere in the next half century.

This is a very neutral pros/cons position on ocean acidification you might find of iterest. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/ ... ification/

You know, this April we crossed the 400ppm level two years earlier than climatologists were forecasting which is as high as has been in up to 15-20 million years. That is staggering when you think about it. Anatomically accurate humans have only existed 200K years or so and the last time CO2 levels were this high the oceans were 100' feet higher and the temperature was about 5C warmer.

The only thing slowing down environmental catastrophe and encouraging the 'cigarettes don't cause cancer because cancer has always existed' crowd is the ice at the poles keeping us artificially cool the same way the liquid in your drink stays the same temperature whether the glass is 90% ice or it has melted 2% ice. Temperature doesn't start to really change until the ice is gone.

   

GFB,

If you decide to join the global warmists that's completely up to you. Unlike the warmists us skeptics do not propose putting the other side in prison for stating their opinions.

   

A statement like that and I'm the alarmist?

   

Let's look at holocaust denial.

You've got your Iran's that imprison you for stating it happened and your Germany's who imprison you for denying it. What is at issue here in these countries? The Holocaust itself or a political agenda driven by hatred on one side and guilt on the other?

In Canada we take a moderate approach and don't legally become involved until someone advocates violence or teacher goes outside the curriculum in the same manner he would if he was preaching dogs are hatched by eggs or the world is flat and people coexisted with dinosaurs 6K yeas ago.

You can feel free to publicly present your opinion on the above in public speeches, on the internet or in debates and you will only look like an idiot but won't be breaking the law.

When the David Suzukis of this world suggest climate change deniers be stifled with accusations of environmental blasphemy they expose themselves for the wingnuts they are and this should instead lead to separate questions of free speech and expression because to legitimately dismiss the overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change itself because someone wants to make doing so illegal is no different or valid an argument than some moron wanting to make Holocaust denial illegal and by extension this somehow legitimises the conspiracy theory the Holocaust was a hoax.

   

When somebody in Canada goes to jail for denying climate change, we can talk. I can't see that happening myself.

   

The folks who deny climate change is real or the ones who acknowledge the fact it is occurring but deny it is anthropogenic in origin tend to hype up the 100 or so university professors and activists on the planet who have made off the cuff remarks to reporters or at lectures musing it should be a crime to essentially confuse the public with deliberate misinformation.

While I can't agree with what they're saying I can sympathise with the sentiment. For example, some polls show almost half of Americans believe that 9/11 was an inside job by their own government. More than 3/4 of Muslims around the world also believe it was the Americans who did it to themselves.

Should it therefore be legal for a professor who is a "truther" to teach his views? If hundreds or thousands of professors were doing so and the media started giving serious airtime to the 9/11 deniers I imagine legitimate academics and historians would also be asking that this be a crime.

   

Of course not. You'd just shoot 'em.

   

1  2  Next