Things On Earth Are Changing Quickly
Most climate change deniers are the victims of deliberate disinformation campaigns that succeed in duping their victims with faulty information, like “scientists’ predictions have not been accurate.” This is simply incorrect; the predictions have, overall, been frighteningly accurate.
But here’s something to consider: all this is happening for the first time in human history, and it’s happening very quickly. Had you asked the scientific community 50 years ago if humans, even acting with full, concerted force and total malevolence, were capable of damaging the environment in any meaningful way, most of them would have said no. At best, it was something of an imponderable question: damn, those oceans are big, and skies are even bigger. Can a bunch of pipsqueaks building fires and dumping rubbish where it doesn’t belong have any real bearing on the planet’s overall health? Again, few people would have agreed.
Here’s what we’ve learned in an incredibly short period of time: Yes, we can screw things up in the most horrific ways imaginable; in fact, we are doing exactly that, and in a hell of a hurry. This is the impetus behind the largest group of climate scientists ever assembled, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), asserting that we have about a decade to make radical changes to our greenhouse gas emissions or face catastrophe.
At this point, it’s out of the scientists’ hands. Now, it’s in ours.
Craig,
It’s a great term “Scientists” isn’t it ? Sort of specific and yet vague at the same time.
The complex nature of the diverse opinions and positions held by various scientists (of a wide variety of disciplines)allows alarmist advocates to politicize various aspects of scientific information while weaving a distorted, but seemingly “scientific” authenticity, to a otherwise completely unscientific agenda.
Emotive terms like “climate denier” can be used to browbeat and dismiss dissent, or even honest inquiry.
Doubters can be righteously vilified as “trolls’, “deniers” or evil tools (discriminators of heresy) for various invented enemies or objects of opprobrium.
All in the name of a highly emotive, intolerant and fanatical “crusade”. The first casualty of this crusade was objectivity, followed by perspective and integrity. “Science” was hi-jacked to be weaponized and serve older political/ideological agenda.
The mainstream media outlets have been forced by rising competition from social media into sensationalizing what was once considered “unbiased news reporting” into opinion pieces or
thinly disguised propaganda
Thus once objective reporters like the New York Magazine’s Andrew Sullivan can unashamedly report the Mueller Report as clearing President Trump of any offense, but still call for his immediate impeachment on the grounds of his objectionable personality and what he might be thinking!
In a world where in any narrative facts no longer matter, no one apologizes or even admits they simply got it wrong, why should the general public put any trust in politicized institutions like the IPCC?
Closer to home, look at how even once moderate advocates (like yourself), have become angry, intolerant crusaders, unwilling to acknowledge any errors or alterations to your fixed doctrine.
The problem is separating factual information from doctrines based on passionate belief.
Just as the “never Trumpers” desperately need to continue believing in the huge, invented conspiracy theory, so too do the more extreme climate change advocates need to ramp up environmental hype to distract from objective examinations and critiques of scientific conjecture .
The need to ‘believe’ is very fundamental to human psychology. Belief can be a powerful force for good or harm, it just depends on the believer.
However, scientific discipline requires an absence of “belief”. Conjecture can’t become ‘evidence’, theories must remain just theories and even when proven reliable, must still be considered vulnerable to the discovery of future evidence or new knowledge.
No knowledge can be considered absolutely ‘sacred’ or ‘inviolate’, (not even the “laws” of physics). The search for alternate possibilities lies at the heart of scientific endeavor.
“Scientists” are not aesthetic, noble, superior beings beyond reproach. In fact, quite the opposite. Scientists are subject to the same flaws, failings and personality foibles as the rest of humanity. (often more so).
Advocates love to extrapolate scientific conjecture, by means of “interpretation” to comply with a particular agenda or political ideology, thus distorting any scientific integrity while retaining a semblance of “scientific ” endorsement.
Add to the mix vested interests, political and professional ambition, conspiracy theories, claims and counter-claims etc, is it any wonder the general public remains skeptical ?