Climate Denial Machine

I think one of the problems with climate change (and the "deniers" thereof) is the lack of distinction people make between anthropogenic change and just what that change might be.

Human activities, in particular spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, will certainly have some effect on the climate. However, there is an enormous long-term natural variability of the climate even without humans, not to mention sporadic events such as volcanic eruptions, and changes in the solar "constant." Those, along with the imperfect and inconsistent models used by climatologists, create a lot of disagreement over what the anthropogenic changes might amount to. One can argue (and plenty do) that human activity will push us over the edge and apocalypse will result. One can also have fun with the notion that maybe we're preventing another ice age by setting fire to the coal mines in China, which, incidentally are dumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as all the cars and light trucks in the USA! (See RIKLBLOG - Disclaimer ).

I think a lot of the argument on the subject of climate change is due to this dichotomy, as well as not understanding the distinction between "weather" (which can change by the minute) and "climate" (which changes by centuries), and just where the boundary between those two resides.

Richard

 

An excellent summary.

I won't add further to your fine overview around causation and the overall debate.

What I will say is that I am regarded as conscious of the environment for merely driving a Prius by my peers. If I am honest I picked it for 3 reasons, like most here. Decent sized car for family/comfortable commute, financial saving from improved mpg over similar alternatives / models and its green credentials. I am environmentally conscious to a degree, enough so that it staggers me how much misinformation exists in the average population - and I'm thinking across a cross section of my friends, relatives and work colleagues.

The media, a general term I know, has a lot to answer for. Firstly for providing a soap box to those with a financial interest in dismissing climate change outright, but by not ensuring a consistent balanced message is given to the masses. Everyone is entitled to their view based upon the huge variables, but there's no excuse for what could easily be termed misinformation.

I am of the standpoint that i should minimise my impact on others. If climate change is primarily driven by car fumes alone id be amazed, but it doesn't mean I should pollute the air without regard. Plus ultimately, ice ages may be beyond humanity to dictate just yet. Just my view.

 

The media (in toto) bears tremendous responsibility, simply because they present "both sides" of an argument as though they have (or should have) equal veracity. For example, you have two guests on a talking panel, one from a pro side of an argument and be from the anti side, on nearly any (and every) issue, creating a false equivilancy, regardless of the ridiculousness of one side or the other!

"Today we re going to be talking about Polio. Our guests are Dr. Jonus Saulk who is going to talk about the benefits of Polio Vacines, and thier efficacy. Our other guest is Hiram Jones, high school drop out from Denialville.

Mr Jones, tell us about your experince please,,. "Thanks Dave, and thank you for having me. My Uncle had polio and he is just fine, limps a bit. In my experince, eating coffee grounds mitigates the effects if polio without any side effects."

Now Dr. Saulk, can you please discuss the effects of eating coffee grounds on polio sufferers?"

There are some things that do not have two equal sides, there are issues that are decidedly clear. Our media needs to stand up and shout to these folks "you are an idiot!" or at the very least, suggest that there is idiocy in thier argument! On many issues, there are not two viable opinions. Some issues are decided! Folks can argue nuance, and degree perhaps, but to deny basic factual evidence for the purpose of "being fair and balanced" does us all a great disservice,, and promotes doubts in what is, in fact a one sided issue!

Icarus