Translate

Friday, November 28, 2014

Why Using Politics To From An Opinion On Climate Change Doesn't Work

   The title of my blog is the "practical environmentalist." One word represents a practical stance, a stance that attempts to base itself on facts and reality versus emotionalism. Contrast this with the term "enviropnmentalist," which is stereotyped as a granola-eating bycicling yuppy with no grasp on reality, and you have a pretty good contradiction. It is, however, completely possible for these two worlds to exist together, and indeed, complement each other. Idealism won't run a farm, but mindlessly searching for money is a sure way to destroy nature. In my mind, the best run farm, business, or operation, is one that seeks overall sustainability - meaning one that balances profits, fiscal responsbility, and environmentalism as well. On a farm, sustainabilty and environmentalism can actually create a highly profitable farm, as people like Joel Salatin, Greg Judy, and other farming "pioneers" prove.
   The point of this is, without a practical side to it, environmentalism can occasionally sound like a crack. "Save the owls, screw the people" may sound familiar to some people. Allowing "eco-freak-ism" to be tempered with a practical, reasonable side results in well-rounded viewpoint. The main point of all of this is that it is extremely important to be objective when forming an opinion, on anything really, not just climate change. Scientists are generally very good at this; the scientific method is, after all, based on asking questions. If scientists weren't good at asking questions, we wouldn't be very far along! Scientists also have to be objective. This means that if evidence causes a viewpoint to need to be thrown out the window, it is thrown merrily out the window. (More likely it is sedately, after much debate, thrown out the window...) Skepticism is an important aspect of any scientist's psyche. Ask a scientist a question about something odd-ball, and they are bound to give you an odd look. This is not because they are closed minded, but rather because they are skeptical of data that contradicts what they know. In a nutshell, scientists don't rely on neighborhood gossip. If a local says he say a 'coon, the other local assumes there was a 'coon. If a scientist hears it, though, there could have been anything or nothing until he sees evidence that there was a 'coon.
   To put it bluntly, most of these extremely intelligent people have used science, data, and questioning to come up with the conclusion that climate change is happening, and that it is most likely caused by man. (Case in point - CO2 levels rise, CO2 causes warming, and humans happen to be emitting a lot of the stuff. It's hard to skew the data there.) A lot of this is about repeatable data. Typically, when arguing with skeptics, they tend to bring up politics. There are some good points and bad points to this, but the main flaw is that this is where their opinions are based. Granted, it's easier to read Fox News if  you always read it anyway, but who's telling you? The people who know weather and climate science or the people with an agenda? The average scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is about 95%.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
  So why are politics a bad place to find actual facts? Well, first off, to tell if a politician is lying, just watch the lips. Not always true, obviously, but it does encourage one to try to take a hard stance on what people are saying. Can they back it up, with studies perhaps? Not really, most of the studies done by reputable sources support AGW (anthropogenic global warming), which is inconvenient for skeptical politicians. The only thing they could really do is find disgruntled scientists who support them, which works, except they are a severe minority, as we've already discussed. They can also just say things that are incorrect, because a lot of people want to believe they're right. Politicians have a lot of different opinions and agendas themselves, as well. Of course, politics do come into the picture, since politics run the way the country and the world respond to climate change. However, whatever the mired case for the politicians is, the point that I'm trying to make is quite clear and blunt: Don't form your opinion listening to politicians. If you study the science, and actually come to understand climate science and weather, you will find there is a mountain of evidence for climate change. There also is a pile of evidence refuting it, but it is hardly the elephant in the room and it's existence is acknowledged by scientists, however, none of it destroys the AGW theory. (The ice caps would need to stop melting for that to happen.) So, instead of listening to heresy and backtalk, please, try to educate yourself on the basics. If you don't know the wavelength of light CO2 reflects, the effects of cloud cover on heat in the atmosphere, and why hot weather can generate more, stronger storms, you need to brush up. This isn't to say you can't form an opinion anyways, but please try not to form opinions from opinions.
 


1. http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
3. http://theconsensusproject.com/
4. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
5. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
6. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/