My Big problems with the Global Warming debate... (highway, brainwash, independent)

[walkinthedognthinkn]

I have a few big problems with the global warming debate as it's often conducted. First, though, a few disclaimers that should not be necessary and likely constitute another big problem with this debate.


- I am not a conservative and don't listen to conservative talking points. I'm an independent who votes Democrat more often than not and because of the Republicans election and continued support of Trump, I will never vote for that party again, period.

- I care about the environment. I believe we need cleaner energy and need to stop polluting the environment.

- I am not a scientist and do not have any background in the sciences. I rely on gathering information to the best of my ability and forming my opinion from there.


Now, with that out of the way, let's get into the problems with this debate...


1) Calling anyone who is skeptical or calls into question any aspect of global warming a "denier".

This is simply an ad hominem attack, meant to shut down debate. I do not know if the intention is

to associate skeptics with Holocaust deniers as is sometimes claimed but it's an intellectually LAZY
argument regardless. Science is SUPPOSED to be SKEPTICAL! It should embrace skepticism and challenges instead of building walls and declaring finality and absolutism. What we have is more akin to dogma and the non-believers are cast aside as heretics or "deniers". Hard to believe it's SCIENCE we are talking about!


2) The 97% consensus.

I don't know where this number came from. I've heard differing accounts of it's origins but it's really just another intellectually lazy attempt at intimidating someone to not engage in debate because of the supposedly sheer numbers the other side has in it's favor.

"We have 97% of scientists on OUR side who are in favor of OUR opinion and you only have 3%".
Who cares? Science is not consensus. Many, if not most of the major breakthroughs in science were the result of going against the consensus of the day!
I also doubt it means what most people THINK it means. As far as I can tell, the questions that were asked in the various studies were if man influences the climate. As for HOW MUCH man influences the climate and what the future results will be? I don't think there is anywhere NEAR 97% agreement on that.



3) The active suppression of any science that does not fit that prevailing narrative.

A great example of this is a book called The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, where a evolutionary biologist came to the inconvenient truth that polar bears were actually growing in number rather than declining and attempts were made to hide this and attack her reputation since it did not fit the narrative.

There are many other examples of this as well. Read through the Climategate emails for an idea of how scientists actively seek to prevent and malign those who do not support the prevailing narrative.



4) The notion of "I support Science"
This notion that "science" is this monolithic entity that speaks with one voice and it has spoken in regards to Global Warming and you are either "with science" or "against science".

Excellent article I came across that I really cannot improve upon so I will leave this here:
[url]https://thebulwark.com/why-i-dont-believe-in-science/[/url]


5) The Alarmism.

The media and our schools are mostly responsible here. This notion that it's too late and we are all doomed that has been going on for the last 30 odd years. Wasn't the west side highway supposed to be underwater by now and snow a thing of the past? I will just say that I know a young woman who is very bright, attends a great Ivy League school and had an amazing future planned. She feels hopeless and listless now because she has believes her alarmist professors and the media and people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who say we have 12 years until the end of the world. Now she doesn't see the point of working hard for a future that she believes will be very different and bleak. She doesn't want to have children or have a relationship. It's just sad and tragic and watching these kids march and protest around the country and world, I have to wonder how many others have been brainwashed by this constant, unrelenting alarmism.

One example: Guy McPherson, Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology & [URL="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution"]Evolutionary Biology[/URL] at the University of [URL="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Arizona"]Arizona
[/URL]
He has a SUICIDE HOTLINE posted on his personal blog because it is so unrelentingly BLEAK and hopeless that apparently this is a concern among his audience! This is an example of the people teaching and influencing our young adults!
I have a simple question that I ask people who bring this topic up in conversation with the certainty that there is no hope and we are screwed in the short term future. I ask them: "So, have you cached out your 401k and retirement savings and started buying prepper supplies"? I get a blank look back in return. Why?? If you REALLY believe this, why do you need retirement money to prepare for a future you do not think will arrive? Why not prepare for the future you apparently believe WILL arrive?


I guess they haven't fully committed to it but they have NO PROBLEM filling the heads of impressionable young people with hopelessness and despair and that pisses me off to no end!