Do Climate Change Deniers Make You Uncomfortable?
Here’s a cute and funny piece that gets at something most of us have experienced: encountering a climate change denier in a public setting like a holiday dinner.
Personally, I’m content to keep to myself and to refuse to be drawn into the subject. Climate denial is anti-scientific, and using logic, data and reason is the wrong tool for the job; it’s like trying to repair your cell phone with a hatchet. Suppose the guy is a Christian Scientist or an Edgar Cayce acolyte. What possible benefit is there to arguing about the scientific merits of his beliefs? Have you ever heard of manners?
I was talking with an old friend whose home was on the path of Hurricane Irma last September, and, reading between the lines of what he was saying, it clear that he’s a climate denier. In the course of the conversation he mentioned, knowing that I had written four books of clean energy, that “my opinion was probably that human-caused climate change is real.” I responded gently, “Oh, I don’t have an opinion. This is a matter of science. I believe in science, but I don’t have opinions about it.”
The path the Earth’s climate is taking couldn’t care less what we think about it.
Craig,
You are quite right, there’s little point in discussing anything, with anyone, if you don’t care about their point of view or have formed a rigid set of opinions of your own.
For myself, I enjoy listening to other peoples opinions, no matter how extreme. Sometimes among all the nonsense are gems of truth, or at least indications of the basis for the persons beliefs.
In a crowd when listening to a person holding sway with extreme opinions, it’s often possible to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of supporters with just a few seemingly amiable questions.
Nonetheless, I concur with your opinion that either the science is correct or incorrect, no amount of argument will alter scientific fact.
But that’s the problem, isn’t it ? What is the real science, and with what degree of accuracy are the conclusions various scientist, advocates and pundits to be accepted ?
Having “belief in scientists” , isn’t really any more rational than any other ‘belief’ since it requires a leap of faith. Like all leaps of faith, once you have suspended your own capacity for critical independence you become less rational and invest more emotional commitment to your adopted cause.
The first thing your new ‘faith’ demands is “choosing sides” and stop listening to other viewpoints.
Me, well, I just like to keep an open mind…..
In my ‘odyssey’ through the old Coal and rust belt of the American heartland I encountered many different viewpoints, opinions, attitudes and information.
By treating most, if not all of my hosts and contacts with genuine interests, empathy and interest, I was able to gain a greater understand of their experiences and circumstances.
From some I learned new information, or at the least different aspects, while from others I just learned about their history and way of life.
I came away with a new respect for these folk, and I hope a more insightful and productive mindset on how to help this important industry stay relevant and mitigate it’s more negative features.
Perhaps that’s the real lesson I learned, moderation, mitigation and modernization is superior to ideological purity and futile political divisive conflict.
Therein lies the problem of the Climate change debate, it’s inherently political since it requires serious and expensive public action to combat it’s more negative effects. Even if the climate change aspects are removed from consideration, damage done to the environment is still the responsibility of the planet’s dominant species to mitigate.
In order to achieve such measures most effectively we need less ardent advocacy demanding ferocious ‘crusades’ with ‘villains’ to be ostracized and people forced against their will to comply with rigid ideological agenda.
What we need is persuasive, practical, cooperative measures that can enlist all aspect of the community to help implement environmental programs and progress in ways which harness public support for the betterment of all, while eschewing divisiveness.
The fact that such action is possible, even popular is the lesson i learned during my ‘odyssey’.
Bill McKibben quite correctly observed that this issue hinges on physics, as clearly understood for many decades (by Exxon scientists as well as thousands employed elsewhere). This isn’t subject to debate or negotiation. We can either accept the data or deny the data.
The present deepening reality of the phenomenon is unaffected by acceptance and denial, but our crucial response to that reality is being lethally delayed because of denial.