A commenter writes in reply to this post:"This issue has become so much like a religion that its followers operate on blind faith. There is nothing you can do to have them look at it from a different perspective let alone change their minds."
I do not worship man-made climate change - I loathe it. But as far as your assumption that I, or any of my co-believers, operate on blind faith, I humbly submit that climate change skeptics do the same. They (while bashing AGW proponents) fail to offer a single explanation for "WHERE IS THE CO2 GOING?" or "CAN YOU MODEL WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN FIFTY YEARS IF WE DON'T CURB EMISSIONS?", they just sit on their high horse and pontificate that AGW arguments are false. I asked one AGW skeptic "if the CO2 humans are producing isn't causing the global warming that occurred for 147 of the last 150 years, then what is?" and she gave me a vague "Earth's cycles," response, but upon pressing her for data...any data...she said "I leave it to the experts."
So I ask you experts; please tell me: the Texas-sized flotilla of trash in the Pacific Ocean: is it negatively affecting the environment? The near-exctinction of several thousand Ocean species due to human sushi consumption: is it negatively affecting the environment? The hole in the ozone due to human use of hair spray and refrigerant: is it negatively affecting the environment? The hunting-to-extinction of most apex predator species on Earth: is it negatively affecting the environment? The millions of gallons of wastewater that manufacturing plants and chemical plants dump directly into the rivers: is it negatively affecting the environment? The tons and tons of artificially produced hormones pumped into the water that scientists have proven turn male fish into
Here's the thing: huge flotillas of plastic trash, dead albatross chicks, huge warehouses of dead bluefin tuna, overpopulated prey species (due to predator loss) eating people's flower gardens, polluted water (and signs warning you to not eat your catch), dead fish, dams, dust storms, dead animals covered in oil...these are all things that climate change skeptics will readily admit are caused by humans, and will also usually admit negatively affect the environment. This is because the climate change skeptics only believe something they can see with their own eyes. But because airborne pollution is invisible and they can't freaking see it, they dismiss it with a wave of their arrogant hand.
You notice there isn't a single climate change skeptic from Tianying, China, because most of the people there are too busy dying from lead poisoning. Nor do you find climate change skeptics in Norilsk, Russia, where it is difficult to see ten feet on a good day.
So no, I don't believe in global warming based on blind faith. I take forty million other examples of humans harming the environment and surmise that CO2 is most likely example 40,000,001.
_
2 comments:
It's pretty remarkable to me that something supported by a nearly unanimous consensus of the world's relevant scientific bodies can be written off as a matter of blind faith. This is the effect of very powerful, very well-funded disinformation--that something so uncontroversial among experts can be so controversial among laypeople.
Benjamine,
The CO2 debate is nowhere close to unanimous. I have no idea where you get that. This is another example of the faith Im reffering to. Your willing to say its unanimous just out of thin air. I would think the hack TAE pointed to is all you would need to see your top leading scientific body might leave something for debate. But no, you know CO2 is the enemy, there is no changing that. You have seen all the data you need to see and turn your head if there is any data that might make things look a little different.
TAE,
Ludicrous. You reference a story of one of the top climate study groups being hacked and the troubling information that was uncovered in a sarcastic way. I comment on the sarcasm when there are serious issues with the way this group is conducting its “studies” and presenting them to the public. I respond directly to the wiki link you point to. You completely disregard that point and instead point to other issues of man polluting. For shame.
So I’ll address your points even though you’re unable or unwilling to address mine.
I don’t dispute for one second that man has polluted much of the environment and that is a bad thing. I don’t dispute trash dumped into oceans and rivers, hunting in excess to wipe out a species, mass hormones in our water supply due to the over medicated population of humans we have on this planet and the direction we have chosen to go with modern medicine. Your right, this isn’t disputed. And you’re also right that not everyone is jumping on the CO2 bandwagon because it can’t be seen. Not just to the naked eye in your environment but you also can’t see it on paper in the studies that are conducted to try to prove this point. You know it and most everyone knows it. You most certainly are operating on faith when it comes to CO2.
Not to mention you end your post in the same way the carbon debate begins, on faith. You prescribe a false assessment of since a, b, and c are bad, d must be bad as well. You surmise CO2 is “most likely” another bad thing, you have no idea and the studies you would point to are all debatable. Yet you have faith that is the culprit and like I original stated you are unwilling to look at it from a different angle let alone for one second ponder the possibility that you may not be correct.
Im not just blaming you for this, I blame the staunch anti CO2 crowd for this as well. I find myself in an odd position of being willing to look at all studies looking for the answer no matter what side it falls on. But both groups are so attached to their idea its like the new republicans and democrats or the new modern day religion. You don’t even care if you’re right or wrong, this is your team, and you’re sticking with them. This is most troubling about both sides of this issue and what I find most troubling about your posts.
So instead of side stepping the issue, why don’t you address the hack you referenced in your original post That I replied to. Have you lokoed at it at all or have you turned your head because you know the story debates your view? It’s got to be difficult to see how a group that pushes your agenda conducts themselves. It’s got to be difficult as an engineer to see the behind the scenes of these studies. It’s got to be easy to put yourself in those shoes and wonder how long you would be making a positive difference in your career and in the world we love were you to conduct you’re business / design planning like that.
Post a Comment