Climate Disruption

In the 1970s it was global cooling (http://newsbusters.org/node/6546).

When the evidence suggested that the earth wasn’t cooling, they called it global warming (http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html).

When the evidence suggested that the earth wasn’t warming, they started calling it climate change. Now the White House is calling it climate disruption (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/report-uses-phrase-climate-disruption-as-another-way-to-say-global-warming/).

But wait…if we only initiate massive government controls we can keep from destroying the earth for our children and grandchildren…

There’s far too much on this topic to discuss here. As a primer, I HIGHLY recommend The Great Global Warming Swindle released in 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ). A recent book review in the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html) is also great reading. I want to focus on the connection between science and politics, and more specifically on the notion of experts.

Respect expertise on a topic, but don’t follow the experts blindly. They are not always correct. “Experts in the scientific community” are telling us that we are causing the earth to heat up and that we must take action soon to avoid destroying the planet. But “leading economists” also told us that Obama’s 2008 $787 billion stimulus package was going to create tons of new jobs and it didn’t. You’ve probably had a mechanic tell you that paying him for some type of preventative maintenance was necessary to avoid a breakdown that never happened.

Experts are just like the rest of us. They have biases, limitations, and political views. They want to feel like they matter. They are also influenced by the money trail—government grants for climate research, political contributions for cronyism, or a quick $75 for an unnecessary car repair. This doesn’t mean that they’re expertise isn’t valuable or that they can never be trusted, but it does mean that their claims should be vetted.

When it comes to climate change, there are lots of questions that need to be answered. For starters, why should we believe dire forecasts about anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming when the ones about global cooling were incorrect? If many of the climate claims have already been debunked, why should we believe the current ones? How can we be certain that human activity is causing climate change when we know that there have been more pronounced temperature swings long before humans started building factories and driving cars? Couldn’t the oceans and solar activity—things we cannot control—be the prime causes of climate shifts?

The proponents of climate change are good at issuing reports but have been unable to provide definitive answers to questions like these. Many prefer to say that the topic is too complicated to explain or it’s “settled science.” Some play the “what if we’re right” game, suggesting that we must take drastic action just to be on the safe side. Others mock you as a flat-earther, a greedy capitalist, or an environment hater if you question them. If the “experts” on anthropogenic climate change cannot provide convincing answers to these and other questions, then we have every reason to be suspicious.

But why does the notion of anthropogenic climate change have such a strong political following? If we accept the fact that human activity is irreparably harming the earth, then it stands to reason that we (government) must take action. In the case of climate change, the action required is a mass scale-down of business activity and heavy-handed government control to make sure that nobody drives the wrong car, burns the wrong fuel, produces the wrong crops, raises the wrong livestock, or make the wrong products. But it gets worse. The only way to combat this globally is with multi-country agreements, which means global enforcement, wealth redistribution from developed nations (the earth destroyers) to less developed ones, and the constant negotiation of our Constitutional liberties to appease other nations. If you’re a hard-core socialist who dreams of a one-world government, then this is your ticket.

I have a simple suggestion that could go a long way to resolve this problem: A NATIONALLY TELEVISED DEBATE with a team of scientists on each side and a moderator whose only job is to make sure they don’t get bogged down in scientific jargon. This would give the climate change advocates an opportunity to sway the critics, but would also expose the holes in their arguments. Of course, this is why it will never happen. The proponents would rather stick to the “settled science” argument and let the media push the political agenda.

8 thoughts on “Climate Disruption

  1. You’re an intellectual and you should know better. Climate change is a very complicated topic and requires a lot of knowledge to understand. If we don’t trust the experts, then who do we trust, the morons?

  2. I am a biologist, not a meteorologist. I like this blog because it is independent and looks at the facts, but I disagree on this. Global warming is occurring and humans are the major cause. The evidence is very technical even for me, but it is convincing. I do not subscribe to every climate model, but the fact is that most of them predict further climate change. We must do a meta-analysis and consider the majority findings. We have no other choice.

    Capitalists are not willing to consider the evidence because it is not convenient for them, but I will grant the fact that nobody knows for sure. Let’s suppose that you are right and there is no global warming. It will be good news for all of us even if we enact carbon controls that turn out to be unnecessary. Besides, it will be cleaner for everyone and will contribute to a more just world.

    Now, let’s suppose that I am right and global warming is threatening us. If we do not take any action we will destroy the planet in a few generations. We only have one planet, so the wise thing to do would be to build a global coalition to minimize greenhouse gases. The constitution is meaningless if we have no planet, so we need to be realistic and find common ground.

    There are debates on youtube already. We don’t need a nationally televised debate because the evidence is too technical and it will further divide the country. There will always be skeptics, but that shouldn’t stop us from acting. It’s time to move forward.

  3. Bio: Please provide an explanation for this sentence: “It will be good news for all of us even if we enact carbon controls that turn out to be unnecessary.” It does not makes sense. Thanks.

  4. Bio- you admit that nobody knows for sure, so why are you so convinced that we have to move forward?

    1. I usually don’t follow-up posts but this is an exception. BIO_1988 is welcome to respond to the questions. I hope he does. In the mean time, I have 4 observations.

      1. He did not offer any evidence for anthropogenic global warming, but referred to it as too technical to explain.

      2. He framed the argument on whether or not global warming exists. This is debatable, but only a small part of the debate. The real question is whether man is a SIGNIFICANT cause of any NEGATIVE climate change. The burden of proof is on his side to demonstrate the the climate is changing, that the change is negative, that it is due to human activity (anthropogenic), and that the cost of slowing or halting the change is greater than the cost of going nothing.

      3. His reference to “a more just world” tells me that he has a problem with how wealth is distributed in a capitalist society.

      4. He made the classic “what if we’re right” argument, claiming that we need to take action to be on the safe side. This is a debate ploy. It’s like me claiming that your computer will crash tomorrow, offering to sell you a piece software to prevent the crash, and then arguing that you should buy it just in case just in case I’m right. His argument hinges on the existence of compelling evidence to support significant, negative climate-related outcomes due to human activity. This is why I suggested a high profile debate. If having one would be divisive, then apparently the evidence is not compelling.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *