Fatalistic thinking is a massive bugbear for Climate Change activists. It matters not whether the fatalism is correct. In the eyes of deniers, the mind-frame itself is problematic. This area sorely needs addressing. The same thinking was prevalent with the Millenium Bug, in the year 2000. The Millenium Bug turned out to be a massive public scare with little or no basis. This is important. A precedent has been followed. A bunch of people spoke up, essentially proclaiming the end of the (digital) world. For people who are not involved heavily with computers - it was a bunch of crazy tech people speaking far out of their station. Their prophecies could be safely ignored.
The same is true with the Climate Change debate. The tendency to exaggerate (in whatever fashion) disastrous events is a well-established norm. The invariable winners are the people who ignored such fatalistic claims. The calculated end of civilisation by the Mayans, in 2012, is an oft-spoken of event. No-one (I know) would believe such an ancient prophecy directly. However, couple that with other things, such as Climate Change, and one can easily merge the two. One could easily ascribe to the Mayans a 'green' brain that was able to see the effects of Climate Change. This process is the problem that I am talking about.
In the eyes of deniers, a fatalistic mind-frame is a problem in of itself. It smacks of depression and self-loathing. A person who is so unhappy with their own life, that they begin to ascribe their viewpoint to the wider world. Whether or not any of this is true is irrelevant. The overtones are clear. To a great degree, many deniers may feel like they are debating with children. Children who invoke the bogey monster from the closet. The Climate Change activists must address this issue. It is critical. It may take years to get this public relations point right.
I have 2 points I wish to directly address to sceptics. The first is the nature of the word sceptic. To be a sceptic is a completely natural turn of events, as highlighted above. Historically, sceptics have contributed much more than authority, one may safely surmise. The definition of the word sceptic (amongst others) is ' Philosopher who questions the possibility of knowledge.' A very powerful position. However, related to the Climate Change debate, it is clear that most knowledge talked about can never be proven. Or never be proven in sufficient time. Proof is an incredibly dicey area. One may continually reject proof for reasons other than the data. Wittled down, scepticism at it's extreme is also nihilistic. In the same fashion that Climate Change activists are (to the extreme). A perfectly acceptable line of scepticism (and not a new one) is to deny that anything could ever be known. In a philosophical sense, it is impossible to 'prove' this viewpoint incorrect. It is correct simply because one has taken the position. It must be noted that one can never move from such a position, if one's aim is to be 'right', once it is taken.
As a sceptic, having taken the position, it is one's duty to examine evidence. The sceptic must at all times keep an open mind. To do otherwise would be selective scepticism, ie everyday 'logic'. Taking of a position purely for personal reasons. A sceptic must not take this option, to continue to call themselves a sceptic. Clearly, most who label themselves so are not sceptics. They are merely deniers. Deniers are impossible to debate, on any topic. The pre-formed view is that which one is left with. This is not a Sceptic.
I urge all sceptics to examine the atmosphere of Venus. Venus has no possible man-made interference in relation to it's atmosphere. I believe this sidesteps another of the great problems with this debate - Fault, or lack of it. In discussing Venus, the debate will have much greater clarity. Please examine the current data on the atmosphere of Venus and make your own conclusion.
Thankyou for taking the time to read this article.
P.S. In speaking of deniers/sceptics/activists/(believers), I entirely acknowledge that no 1 person is 100% either way. The sceptic (in everyone) can, and should be appealed to directly to further this debate.
--------
In conclusion. 1 month after writing the article. The whole debate is far more stuffed than I imagined. This post has convinced no-one. At no stage did the discussion move on to Venus. Most just read the first few lines and teed off. They had no idea what the article was about.
--------
In conclusion. 1 month after writing the article. The whole debate is far more stuffed than I imagined. This post has convinced no-one. At no stage did the discussion move on to Venus. Most just read the first few lines and teed off. They had no idea what the article was about.
Posts
I agree with you entirely about the dangers of fatalism. There is another danger which you illustrate in your article and that is the tendency to adopt extreme positions, illustrated by the year 2000 issue. The issue was obviously hyped by consultants and computer hardware and software vendors, but the fact is that many billions of dollars and perhaps millions of man-years of software development time went into preventing a crisis. To say that it had little or no basis, is to do exactly what climate change deniers are doing. In the case of year 2000 there was no doubt at all about the factual basis of the problem. The only question is how much unnecessary remediation work was done. Not much chance of that happening in the climate change debate!
ReplyDeleteThat is true about the millenium bug. It did have a basis that heaps of money was spent on. The only thing I was worried about, though, was my bank account. I couldn't believe anything else would go wrong. There is a danger in the position I have taken - to say it had little or no basis. I genuinely felt at the time that it was in the interests of tech people to hype it for extra employment. As long as they didn't end up working New Year's Eve.
ReplyDeleteThere is certainly little chance of extra remedial work being done on climate change. It will be the bare minimum, as you say.
the problem is too many of the participants have agendas that have nothing to do with the climate.
ReplyDeleteeven the advocates of that so-called climate change has their own agenda... Hhehe
ReplyDeleteThe Pacific Isles and large Isles of ice floating past my house are not "in the future".
ReplyDeleteClimate Change Deniers = Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer
ReplyDeleteIn the 70's they were yelling about the ice age. Then it's Global Warming. Now it's climate change cuzz they don't like being caught in their own lies.
ReplyDeleteI remember when paper bags were bad so we switched to plastic bags and now plastic is bad. It was getting colder now its getting warmer and hairspray damages the ozone layer. Its all lies to make money with their "green" products. Don't fall for the scam.
ReplyDeleteor believe made-up lies and keep living in fear... that's a much better attitude...
ReplyDeleteatleast that way, we aren't pumping toxins into an already over populated, over poisoned planet.
ReplyDeleteit will go away Peter. We "saved the rainforests" switching from paper bags to plastic... remember that scam? We still use aerosol even though they lied and said it damages the ozone which is laughable. And that brings us to this Global Warming joke. Any organize that lets you buy your way out of following their own protocol is a complete scam. I am stunned people believe in Global Warming.
ReplyDeleteLOL!!! You know why Greenland is named Greenland? Because it was a lush and furtile area when the Vikings discovered it but now its an iceburg. You know why its an iceburg? because thats what this earth does. The climate changes all the time on its own. The Vikings didn't have cars or planes or lightbulbs back then. Why did Greenland freeze then? LOL
ReplyDeleteoh and smoking doesn't cause cancer... it only raises the percentage that you can get it! LOL
ReplyDeleteWow. This is an area of greater interest than I thought. I thought it was big, but whooaa. Would any sceptics like to discuss Venus?
ReplyDeleteThere is a scientifically proven link between cancer and smoking.
ReplyDeleteHysterical followers of plotting ideologues are destroying the faith we have in the scientific community. They are encouraging charlatans with the title and training (but not the professional integrity) of "scientists" to falsify data to support "POLITICAL POSITIONS" not theories based upon the SCIENTIFIC METHOD!
You people should be ashamed, yet it has already been seen that you cammot be shamed. You either blindly "believe" it as the a cornerstone of your Holy Secularism. Or, worse yet, you are a Progressive [sic] (read Commie-Lib) if a Westerner, or a Nationalist if from the Third World. Both with political agendas.
Scientists should be held to a higher standard. And, drawing parallels to Venus, while interesting, are worthless in this matter.
I truly believe that switching the focus to Venus is the best way to persuade deniers/sceptics. Talking about the Earth's atmosphere with these people is next to pointless. Or negative. They close their ears.
ReplyDeleteThe first few lines of this article appear (in isolation) to be from a climate change denier. This is not the case. It is my attempt to address deniers/sceptics directly. I can't see the point in writing an article for the already converted.