Watched the documentary called ‘I Can Change Your Mind On
Climate Change’. It was followed
by a Q and A panel on the same topic.
It featured Anna Rose, co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, and Nick Minchin, former coalition senator. Both participants
invited the other to speak to a selection of experts of their choice, in an
effort to convince them to change their mind. It was an interesting yet futile concept.
Rose would be considered an alarmist. She appealed to emotion very
often. Asking viewers to think
about future generations or those in third world countries. She wholly believes that the world will
end if we don’t act on climate change.
She is very naïve and idealistic.
Minchin is less emotive. He’s labelled a sceptic despite saying that he agrees that
the climate is changing. He takes
a common sense approach and is disappointed about the lack of a fair dinkum
debate that has long been stifled by a supposed consensus in the science.
The stifling of debate and alarmism over ‘the science’ seems
to have been counterproductive, the by-product being the growth of a dismissive
apathy from the general public.
This infuriates the alarmists, as they can’t stand the fact that there are
people who disagree with them.
Washington DC journalist, Marc Marano, disagreed with
her. But Anna wouldn’t engage in
discussion due to her assertion that Marano is involved in dodgy practices in
his efforts to discredit climate scientists. Her strongest defence was that Marano appeared to have links
to a certain tobacco mogul. Minchin later rightly pointed out that such a
defense was tenuous in that it had no direct bearing on the climate change
debate, much less Marano’s involvement in the same. There was no rebuttal from
Marc as the documentary moved on, although he appeared miffed at her
behaviour. Not surprising as it
was rude, childish and cowardly, and certainly not exemplary of the accepted
rules of civilized debate.
Anna’s uncle is a farmer near Moree. She took Nick there to hear his
views. To Anna it is land like
this for which she is fighting.
Her uncle reported that by his own measurements his land is warming - so
much so that he is planting his summer crops up to three weeks earlier than
usual. Anna would contend that
this is a sign that the science is true; that the earth is warming dangerously
and the world will cease to exist with inaction. Another view is that him planting crops earlier is a great
example of adapting to the already changing climate and that earlier crops may
mean more crops, or perhaps even a competitive edge in the agricultural market,
if there are other regions of the world requiring what he plants, when they’re
all waiting for their warmer season to arrive.
Both extremes were on display during the documentary and the
panel. On one end is the alarmism
view held by Anna Rose, although even she seemed not to be able to sustain such
a tiring stance. At the end of the documentary she stated, “the Science is
never 100%”. So the question is, can even she trust the zealous approach she
currently takes on climate change, when the data underneath her are turning on
a dime? Even Rose herself did not appear entirely set on her stance.
At the other end is dismissing that the climate is even
changing. Fortunately no one on the
panel held this view, as this would be to blatantly deny all the fluctuations
we have experienced since records began. Like most issues the truth might be
somewhere in the middle.
The documentary did manage to crystallise my views on this
issue. The climate is changing as
it always has. It is always active,
warming or cooling, currently warming (even though we remain in an ice age). Therefore causes of warming are mainly
natural with a small role played by human forces. The world will not end
through inaction but we ought to be good stewards of this planet by looking
towards alternate sources of power.
Nuclear should be considered if you’re serious about quitting coal. In the meantime other sources need to
be developed to make them cost competitive and capable of managing base load
power. Our economy should not be
harmed unnecessarily in the process.
Sensible decisions are needed - not emotion driven alarmism.
Posts
2 comments:
What is interesting about this forum is that it most likely succeeded in changing absolutely no minds at all. The reason is that this really is not a scientific issue, it is an ideological one.
The science is not settled. It never is, on this or any other question. No scientists say it is settled. Persons who do say it is settled mean that they are satisfied that the science adequately supports their predetermined position, and are unwilling to entertain the possibility that it may not. Alarmists fall into this category, partly because their fanatical zeal leads them to take the extreme position, and partly because – having taken such a position – one must fend off all who attempt to saw off the limb on which one stands.
The alarmist position is most attractive to those who have long been looking for the Achilles’ heel of free market capitalism, so that they can bring down their great enemy and usher in an imagined new age of greedless Nirvana. That is, Marxist extremists. This can be confirmed by the observation that the people who warn of rapidly approaching climatological Armageddon are the very same ones who frequently deride the “big greedy corporations”. It comes as no surprise to find a concentration of such people in the Australian Greens, surrounded by bubble-headed nature lovers who are unlikely to have spent any significant fraction of their lifetime west of the Annandale Hotel – people whom Lenin would have called “useful idiots”.
The point is that these people are committed ideologues – no amount of scientific evidence will ever cause them to change their stripes. They will simply deny the evidence, claim it is fraudulent, or try to discredit the people who produced it with allegations of some vested interest in destroying the environment for capitalist gain. We are treated to this performance all the time, and Ms Rose did not disappoint us on this occasion either.
That is not to say that these New Communists have a monopoly on ideological blindness. Most genuine conservatives also take up their position against anthropogenic global warming before they’ve laid eyes on anything resembling a hard fact, and for the very same reason. “The science” will not sway them either, and hence Nick Minchin can be heard “inexplicably” maintaining the so-called sceptical position, apparently in the face of overwhelming opposition. This should not be surprising either since, once the conservative notes the alarming correlation between Environmentalism and Socialism, he naturally “battens down the hatches”.
It is, of course, most irritating that the conservative is rarely allowed to properly expound his view in the popular media. Left wing policies can invariably be summarised with short, pithy one-liners – ever so popular with the masses. Conservatives generally need to establish an axiomatic foundation upon which to construct a reasoned argument through logical syllogism and anecdotal appeals to classical literature; and I’ve lost you already. It is usually well before this point that the bleating greenie interjects with enough mocking and derision to garner applause from the studio audience and “win the round”.
LB
It is also interesting to note that the extreme antithesis of the alarmist’s position is held by almost no one, and certainly no one who is informed on the issue. The lefties claim that their opponents are “climate change deniers”. It is supposed that people who disagree with them argue that the climate is not changing at all, and there is nothing to worry about. This is of course complete rubbish, and is what is known as a “straw man argument”. To avoid directly engaging with their opponents, the alarmists pretend that they are positing an easily refutable and clearly absurd notion, and then claim victory over them by refuting that fictitious position. Much of the opponent’s time is then wasted by clearing up that misunderstanding, and he is rarely allowed to move on to articulate his own view. An eminently successful public debate tactic, however scurrilous and unsporting it may be.
In addition, if the label “denier” can be made to stick, the conservative is made to appear as though he is refusing to accept what is certain reality, rather than simply putting forth an alternative point of view. Furthermore, I find it extremely hard to believe that they have not noticed the parallel that might be drawn in some minds with the insidious evil of holocaust denial. If they can get away with put their opponents in that bag, it is game, set and match! Such evil attempts to baselessly destroy reputations ought to be considered shameful, yet they are gleefully lapped up by the viewing public.
Most so-called sceptics are not even opposed to the idea that human activity is adversely affecting the climate, though they doubt it could ever be shown conclusively, let alone accurately measured. The main objection from them is simply a matter of practical policy application. They want to address the issue in a way that promotes industry and investment, not one that imposes additional constraints on businesses. They are in favour of clean energy targets, and government assistance to reach them. They are against heavy taxes and wealth redistribution.
LB
Post a Comment