Checking on the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Doesn’t Require Too Much Sweat
A reader comments: “It has become very difficult for the average citizen to discern what is “science” and what is advocacy.”
I grant that. In the case of AGW, however, all the average citizen really has to do is to check the global temperatures over the last 15 months (and last few decades). I really can’t imagine how any intelligent and unbiased person can possibly get this wrong.
Some argue that although the earth is becoming warmer, the warming is not caused by human activities. Because it takes more than a short soundbite or a couple short sentences to explain that the warming is caused by human activities, there is no way to get through to them. Moreover, many of the deniers are aware that climate changes even occurred in prehistoric times; they will use that fact to bolster their position that we are not causing the change. Others will argue that human activity is emitting less CO2 than nature is, via volcanoes and other means.
In fact, indications are that we would now actually be experiencing a cooling trend if we were not increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2, but just try to get that fact across!
Frank you Frame the debate well.
As you point out out one of the challenges of the times is that the issues are technically complex , there is a lack of educated awareness and there are active dis information campaigns that create confusion and division , polarization on so many issues.
Many of the issues could be broken down and people could get a clearer grasp on things and understand , if the negative influence of dark money was removed.
Also it is easy to use slick slogans to dis credit complex approaches and solutions. The culture seeks simplistic slogan solutions so they can move on to the next distractive event.
Due to a combination of anti educated elites and a culture that promotes being independently minded stupid as a badge of Honor the messaage of AGW hits the Wall of resistance.
In light of the fact that most folks understand the value of insurance, here’s a very simple decision tree on Climate Disruption:
Two Possible Conditions:
1) Climate Science is Invalid
2) Climate Science is Valid
Two Possible Responses:
a) Act on the Science Immediately
b) Ignore the Science and Do Nothing
Outcomes:
1a) We lose money but life improves.
1b) Life continues as before.
2a) We save ourselves and our kids
2b) We screw ourselves and our kids
This illustrates that the best response to either condition is to act on the science.