Climate Change: The single, simple argument which will convince all but the delusional & co-opted.

[skip fox]

One Reason/Three Small Parts

Only a single, common-sense realization is needed to refute climate change denial. It’s a compelling one every layman can understand. I give it in three, bare-bone parts

1. Ninety-seven percent of reputable scientists contend man-made climate change is real (ftnt 1). These scientists are highly intelligent individuals who, usually since their teens, dreamed of finding the reasons reality exists as it does and who have spent the majority of their adult lives discovering those reasons. They all have professional degrees in the appropriate scientific fields.

2. The odds of getting any population to agree on a controversial issue at the rate of 97% is almost impossible to conceive. It just doesn’t happen. But if the issue were really controversial, the odds of having 97% agreement by individuals who are committed to finding the truth has to be greater that winning a multi-millions dollar lottery. (Would any sane person gamble the future of the species on such a long shot? )

3. It is absurd to believe that even a significant minority of such professionals would misrepresent their life’s work much less use their work to deliberately deceive mankind for financial gain and the acceptance of their colleagues as climate change deniers contend.

From the perspective of the above simple, common-sense realization, the position of climate change deniers is simply not credible.

(I don’t pretend there’s anything original in the above. I have just tried to stream-line and simplify the issue so that it will make immediate sense to all those not ossified in an ideology or blinded by their own lies and disseminations.)



*******************************************************************

Footnote

(ftnt 1) The percentage, 97%, is reported by NASA at:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The high percentage is not based on heresy or ideology but on three articles in reputable scientific journals:

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

This site also includes the encapsulated positions of eighteen scientific societies, unions, associations, and academies, as well as one governmental agency and intergovernmental body.

Indeed, the site is one of the best places to send critics of the scientific consensus.

*************************************************************

Addendum

Many of the climate change deniers, by the way, are supported the petroleum industry. The Heartland Institute (which is supported by Exxon and others) even created the NIPCC (The Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change) to try to discredit the UN’s highly reputable IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

The following link is a good resource on climate change deniers and their backers put together by Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545

****************************************************************************

Watch for deniers to attack this space. I am told they troll the web for posts which indicate that climate change is real.

[Wounded Bear]

1. NLNA...

No Logician Need Apply...

Deniers aren't about logical answers. They care about profits and power. At least those at the top. Those not in the 1% are usually emotionally committed for some obscure reason, generally ideological.

[skip fox]

2. Right. I wanted to streamline an arguement which will convince the layperson

who is not already co-opted.

There are at least three types of actual deniers:

There are those who are delusional, and you're right. No logic need apply. (I once worked in mental institutions for 6+ years and have watched Fox for over 20, so I am well aware of those.)

There are those who are self-deceived but should know better. Their ideology blinds them to the truth. Again, no logic need apply. (Or maybe the above argument could chip away at a few of these.)

But the ones who really get to me are those who know that are destroying the earth and the modern world but who do so anyway for profits, etc., as you suggest. "Traitors to human consciousness" I call them, but can really only scratch my head.

[skip fox]

3. This is the clearest, simplst argument I know that can change

Last edited Thu Jul 31, 2014, 06:30 PM - Edit history (1)

the uncommitted public's mind minds on this important (life-or-death) issue.

Personally, I think it's not too late to turn things around, but I don't believe we ever will have the political will to do so.

We need MASSIVE mobilization will only come when the majority of the voting population here and elsewhere realize climate change is real.