Answering Chazza's Zealous Comment

Saith Chazza:

These "other reasons" are numerous and legitimate. They include the health of the people of the world, particularly those in the third world who bear the brunt of the developed world's overconsumption and subsequent pollution; the continued existence of the animals and plants of this planet, many of which are coming closer and closer to extinction; and the disappearance of the world's natural places to overexploitation and a complete disregard for anything that doesn't come with a profit. Whether you believe that global warming is a scientific truth or not, whether you buy into the cover-ups of the Bush administration and disregard the statements of the most prominent scientists in the world, what's wrong with doing your part to protect all these reasons? Is it really going to hurt to lower your consumption and recognize that you're living on the one world we have?

Those of us who champion the cause of climate change may come off as radical and against the values of American overconsumption, but at least we give a shit about the planet and the people and animals that live on it.

Okay, I had the beginnings of a long post written up to address Chazza's statements above. In the interest of brevity (stop laughing, Mo) I'm going to make two very quick points, and flesh them out a bit, and attempt (I swear - stop laughing) to be succinct about it. My two points are as follows.

The point that I made in this post is that the level of discourse on disputed subjects such as climate change, intelligent design, and other controversial topics is unacceptable. I'm not impugning the science itself - at least, not here - I'm impugning the fact that one side of the discussion in issues such as these has resorted to bully tactics, ignored legitimate challenges, and summarily dismissed the suggestion of any responsible and fair discourse.

Chazza mentioned that the "'other reasons' are numerous and legitimate" when it comes to pushing reforms based on the issue of climate change. My point and question is this: if those issues are so important, what is the benefit of taking focus off of them in order to push for change based on an overarching issue that's based on questionable data? Doesn't that distract from these important issues instead of helping with them?

Okay, I'll try to be brief. Why are you still laughing?

On the first point, I think it's very simple. When legitimate scientists, including biologists, express an interest or belief in the concept of intelligent design (vice creationism, which is different), they are maligned and marginalized by the rest of the scientific community - it's the equivalent of the era when the Roman Catholic Church accused people of being heretics and followed through by excommunicating them. The same goes for people who question the hellfire and brimstone declarations of former Vice President Al Gore on climate change. If someone says that they're skeptical about climate change, or that they believe that humans play a miniscule role in the apparent warming trend in recent history, or that there's evidence to suggest that this is just part of a cyclic warming and cooling cycle that has continued throughout the history of the planet, they're looked at as if they're crazy. In the speech by Michael Crichton and the upcoming Ben Stein movie, both men give examples of this phenomenon: people being maligned, slandered, repressed, and marginalized for expressing legitimate questions about these issues.

That's unacceptable, and it's the same thing that liberals blame the church for (and in at least some cases, rightly so). It's unacceptable from the church, and it should be unacceptable in academia, politics - every part of public life. If legitimate issues are raised on any issue, we as a free and open society are obligated to address and explore those issues and concerns, and not stifle them. "Prominent scientists" and "concensus" should have nothing to do with it, as history has proven time and again that a single scientist with a revolutionary idea can prove the concensus scientific opinion to be completely and utterly incorrect in its established assumptions and interpretations of the data.

I think the first point is fairly simple as well. Chazza lists the following examples of "other reasons" for supporting reforms based on climate change:

the health of the people of the world, particularly those in the third world who bear the brunt of the developed world's overconsumption and subsequent pollution

the continued existence of the animals and plants of this planet, many of which are coming closer and closer to extinction

and the disappearance of the world's natural places to overexploitation and a complete disregard for anything that doesn't come with a profit

I support the health of the people of the world, including those in the third world. I support the continued existence of animals and plants. I am against the disappearance of the world's natural places. I'm against overconsumption (and I live that position every day), and while I think that overexploitation is overstated, there is certainly a disparity that ought to be addressed (and has been addressed to some degree). So you may be asking yourself, "where is he going with this?", and I'll tell you. When I hear about issues like these, my normal inclination would be to get concerned. When I hear about issues like these, with the caveat "it's all being caused by climate change", or "climate change is threatening such and such group of animals", or "climate change is threatening such and such group of people", all I do anymore is tune it out because I've read enough to know that the "science" in these cases is based on questionable data, and questionable interpretation of that data. As a result, instead of considering these things to be legitimate problems, associating them with the disputed climate change hysteria delegitimizes them in my mind. If these are such pressing issues, shouldn't they be pressing regardless of whether or not they're being influenced by climate change? It goes further: doesn't the zeal over climate change remove direct scrutiny from these issues, and refocus them on a legitimately disputed tangental issue?

In my semi-informed (but in no way expert) opinion, there is little or no evidence to suggest climate change, if it's actually happening, is going to lead to a global catastrophe, climatic or otherwise. Gradual warming trends? Maybe. I also think there is even less evidence that human activity is the root cause of the exceptionally modest warming trends we've seen over the course of the last several centuries. I've also seen no evidence - none - that the kinds of reforms that Al Gore and those of his ilk are supporting would make any appreciable difference in the condition of the planet, save for crippling each and every industrialized economy. If there is a major warming trend coming - and two or three degrees over the course of a century or two is not a major warming trend - then we need to adjust to it, not wring our hands and cripple our economies. That will solve nothing. Normally I think that Philip DeFranco is a hilarious simpleton, but I think he's got it right in this video:



So what about the underlying issues that should be addressed? While climate change is anything but proven, the flipside of the coin is that there's no denying that humans have had an inordinately negative impact overall on the environment over the last century or so. Honestly, I think that the free market has been making overwhelming strides in recent years. What's the evidence for that? Look at the number of recycled and recyclable products that are available lately. Look at what's biodegradable and what isn't anymore. Look at cars: they're making amazing strides in the technological development of alternative fuels and hybrid technologies. Why? Because consumers want products that don't threaten biological diversity, natural places, or jabbering foreigners in other nations who make a living knitting sweaters that are sold at Macy's or jeans that are sold at Old Navy. There are other issues, and other solutions, that ought to be addressed to any number of other problems that the country and the world faces. The point, though, is that hysteria over climate change doesn't help these problems get solve, it hinders efforts to solve these problems by taking attention away from more pressing (and undeniable) issues, as well as eliminating any desire of critics or moderates to support the issue at hand. That's bad for everyone.

And Mighty Mo is laughing at me for not having been brief, but I'm more satisfied with the brevity of this response than I would have been with the first incarnation of this response. Thoughts? Questions? Anyone should feel free to comment. Why? Because unlike the most ardent, rabid, zealous climate change "activists"/fanatics, I welcome a civil and legitimate discourse. That's how we make progress in this world.

Thus saith the Fly.