As for the scientific consensus, I suspect the 97% figure frequently cited is skewed a bit upwards. People who think that we have a climate emergency are more likely to pursue an interest in climate science than people who think we are in good shape. Even so, 97% remains an impressive number.
As it turns out, there are some things that I have noticed outside of climate scientists. One of the most basic is observational. We pollute. We change the color of the sky. If we change the color of the sky, then we are obviously changing the composition of our atmosphere. Even though smog is different from greenhouse gasses, I don't think that it's a long shot that heat transfers differently through a different makeup of our atmosphere.
Climate change would exist even without humans. We're certainly not responsible for the entirety of climate change, but that doesn't mean that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. Technically speaking, if we increase the global temperature by one billionth of a degree, climate change is influenced my mankind.
If you know me, you know that I'm more likely to be influenced by arguments that I disagree with than arguments that I agree with. I have seen so much dishonesty that I don't trust evidence that matches the bias of those providing the evidence. I prefer to look for mistakes. I have to say that deniers frequently rely on seriously faulty logic.
Among the most obvious is that those who dispute reports on climate change rely almost exclusively on politicians and media personalities. I may not jump on board solely on the basis of the scientific community as it has been presented to me, but I would trust them over politicians and media personalities. If climate change is a hoax, why aren't the deniers pointing towards science?
A more specific issue is climate versus weather. Climate is a factor in weather, but climate is a long-term concept. Weather is short-term. You can't look out the window, see the weather, and use that as proof of long-term trends. I have seen jokes from conservatives about shoveling global warming. This helps establish that a lot of deniers lack a fundamental understanding of the concept. Granted, a lot of believers also suffer from this same problem. I have seen numerous people point to warmth at a specific moment to prove a warming climate. The difference is that an overwhelming majority that seem to grasp this concept defend the climatological evidence against humanity.
This took a really concerning twist one winter when the northeast was abnormally cold. A report was released that it was the warmest winter on record with the northeast being the one cold spot on the planet. A number of northeastern conservatives argued that the report couldn't be valid because they encountered precisely what the report said they encountered.
If you have read my blog before, you might already know a semi-contradictory point that I need to make. True knowledge does not exist. There is always a way that you can be wrong. This means that I refuse to accept mankind's influence on climate change as an absolute certainty. That said, I clearly believe that we are warming the climate.
I should also point out that I'm nowhere close to liberal ideology. I'm still skeptical of the government being an effective solution, especially since I can't think of anything that they have been instrumental in solving.
One thing that I want to make clear is that I don't view the Democrats as the party of science. Most Americans, including self-described independents, pick one of the two major parties and conform to their views. For both parties, this conformity comes before the science. This is why Republicans are closer to the science than Democrats when it comes to genetically modified organisms. Even within climate change, the Democrats frequently shrug off ideas that I have read from scientists, especially regarding carbon capture and nuclear power.
Liberals are also attaching two very concerning elements to climate change, politicizing and fearmongering. While I can imagine some ways in which climate change can be lethal, I can't imagine global warming wiping out humanity. If you want to hear about politicizing, I could bring up the Green New Deal, which pushes several issues not involving the environment.
Keep in mind that a scientific consensus that we are warming the planet is very different from a consensus on the extent. The media has been pushing worst-case scenarios, including some that are unrealistic. Believing in global warming is not the same as trusting the media's portrayal, and I don't trust the media's portrayal.
Climate change would exist even without humans. We're certainly not responsible for the entirety of climate change, but that doesn't mean that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. Technically speaking, if we increase the global temperature by one billionth of a degree, climate change is influenced my mankind.
If you know me, you know that I'm more likely to be influenced by arguments that I disagree with than arguments that I agree with. I have seen so much dishonesty that I don't trust evidence that matches the bias of those providing the evidence. I prefer to look for mistakes. I have to say that deniers frequently rely on seriously faulty logic.
Among the most obvious is that those who dispute reports on climate change rely almost exclusively on politicians and media personalities. I may not jump on board solely on the basis of the scientific community as it has been presented to me, but I would trust them over politicians and media personalities. If climate change is a hoax, why aren't the deniers pointing towards science?
A more specific issue is climate versus weather. Climate is a factor in weather, but climate is a long-term concept. Weather is short-term. You can't look out the window, see the weather, and use that as proof of long-term trends. I have seen jokes from conservatives about shoveling global warming. This helps establish that a lot of deniers lack a fundamental understanding of the concept. Granted, a lot of believers also suffer from this same problem. I have seen numerous people point to warmth at a specific moment to prove a warming climate. The difference is that an overwhelming majority that seem to grasp this concept defend the climatological evidence against humanity.
This took a really concerning twist one winter when the northeast was abnormally cold. A report was released that it was the warmest winter on record with the northeast being the one cold spot on the planet. A number of northeastern conservatives argued that the report couldn't be valid because they encountered precisely what the report said they encountered.
If you have read my blog before, you might already know a semi-contradictory point that I need to make. True knowledge does not exist. There is always a way that you can be wrong. This means that I refuse to accept mankind's influence on climate change as an absolute certainty. That said, I clearly believe that we are warming the climate.
I should also point out that I'm nowhere close to liberal ideology. I'm still skeptical of the government being an effective solution, especially since I can't think of anything that they have been instrumental in solving.
One thing that I want to make clear is that I don't view the Democrats as the party of science. Most Americans, including self-described independents, pick one of the two major parties and conform to their views. For both parties, this conformity comes before the science. This is why Republicans are closer to the science than Democrats when it comes to genetically modified organisms. Even within climate change, the Democrats frequently shrug off ideas that I have read from scientists, especially regarding carbon capture and nuclear power.
Liberals are also attaching two very concerning elements to climate change, politicizing and fearmongering. While I can imagine some ways in which climate change can be lethal, I can't imagine global warming wiping out humanity. If you want to hear about politicizing, I could bring up the Green New Deal, which pushes several issues not involving the environment.
Keep in mind that a scientific consensus that we are warming the planet is very different from a consensus on the extent. The media has been pushing worst-case scenarios, including some that are unrealistic. Believing in global warming is not the same as trusting the media's portrayal, and I don't trust the media's portrayal.
No comments:
Post a Comment