Intro:
I don’t usually post political things on Facebook because I read so many comments from strangers in my country that are so, so, whats the word … Luddite comes close but its not quite right. I hate that. I hate that some of those comments are from friends and family who are good people and when I engage with them its an unproductive conversation about apples and oranges. But, I hate what the whiney and grumpy old man in the white house did yesterday on many, many levels so I’m going to make some observations hereFirst about. I hope at the very least you can *try* to understand where I am coming from.
First, a bit more about discussion on Facebook:
I read comments that demonstrate a complete incapacity of empathizing with the other viewpoint for the sake of discussion and I don’t understand why. In some ways its sad because I want to participate in the conversation but can’t get over the feeling that it’s pointless when the folks who are online can’t differentiate between empathy (for the sake of understanding and persuasion) and sympathy (feeling sorry for someone’s different state of mind and belief system). If you can’t (or won’t) put yourself in someone else’s shoes you will never understand them. And as Carmine Falcone said, “And you always fear what you don’t understand.”
Moving on to science:
The point to the intro above is to highlight how difficult it is to have a real, meaningful and production conversation online when politics and science are involved. Many folks never actually seek out the research or data so they can come to their own conclusions. It’s kind of like buying the first thing in an Amazon product search without reading the description (research) or product reviews (peer review). Only shitty consumers would do that, right? Same thing when you consume scientific research, if you outsource it by letting any news organization summarize it for you then you are missing out on the experience of doing your own shopping. You are stuck with their biases and mistakes.
Disclaimer:
So, I require that anyone wishing to comment on this post read the linked research. You can do it. Its long but will help the conversation if we all have a common baseline to start our arguments with. It doesn’t matter if you draw different conclusions from mine. We can’t have a good conversation about it if we are not referencing the same data. Again, its long but you can do it. Take it one section at a time and digest it like a good meal. You will naturally come to your own feel for the conclusions as well as the data they are based on.
My view:
Climate change is real and people all over the world are contributing and causing changes faster than would naturally occur. This is neither good or bad, it is where we are today. At least, thats what I conclude after reading the linked paper below. My first (educational) love in life was biology - I was and still am fasciated by the almost magical way that life evolves and survives on our planet. One of the things I took away from my hybrid education in the real world and college is that, collectively, we are responsible for what happens to life on this planet. If we something wrong and there is something we can do to help we have a moral and ethical responsibility to address it. Pretending something isn’t a problem or that its not “my” problem is unscrupulus and un-ethical. And, me or my child’s grand-children’s children will have to clean it up. If they survive.
The point:
Getting to the point of sharing the video clips of the folks representing the whiney, grump old man in the white house who can’t or won’t answer a direct, simple and important question about belief. I’m not sure why the conversation doesn’t focus on the opposite. Instead of do you believe in climate change; I ask you dear reader and the folks representing the whiney, grumpy old man in the white house about your belief’s:
- Whats wrong with the data and conclusion from James Hansen and the other 15 leading climate change experts in their 2015 research paper? [1]
- Why don’t you believe the effects outlined in James Hansen’s paper? [1]
- How will the US economy plan for and pay for the changes predicted that are outlined in James Hansen’s 2015 [1] research paper?
- In the long term, will we really save money and jobs if the predictions in this research come to pass?
Those questions should get the discussion started. So, grab a warm or cold beverage to share with us and dig into this: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf
Then we can talk about it. Maybe I can convince you to look at things from a different point of view.
[1] - “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2◦C global warming is highly dangerous”: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf
