Archive for category Climate Change Denial
Five Stupid Quotations From Climate Change Sceptics (and how I’d answer them if only I could think on my feet)
As an environmentalist … No. Stop. Not environmentalist; I hate that word. (Thinking out loud again, sorry)
Ok. Take 2:
… As an advocate of the movement to save this planet and everything on it from extinction due to climate change; pollution; deforestation; drought; famine; irresponsible multinationals; GM food; banks; nuclear proliferation; media moguls; desertification; Audi drivers and oceanic acidification, I often find myself embroiled in a heated debate over climate change with people I like to refer to as The Denialists.
Occasionally, I will manage to have a meaningful, in-depth, well-researched, enlightening discussion with one of these people. All too often, though, most denialists just seem capable of coming up with the same tired arguments and replies regarding the realities of climate change and environmental degradation. Below are the five that I hear time and again:
Stupid quote#1: “Man-made climate change isn’t real: Earth’s climate has always gone in cycles”
Answer#1: Yes agreed, the earth’s climate has always gone in cycles – hot, cold, hot, cold, hot, cold, etc. Well done. However, what we are doing by polluting the atmosphere with too many additional greenhouse gases is interrupting the delicate process that causes these cycles thus pushing the whole system into overload. Ironically, we are jeopardising the precise mechanism that denialists so love to wave in our faces.
The earth has maintained an intricate balance over the last few billion years because it had all the tools it required: sunlight, clouds, ice, forests, gases, minerals, plants, animals, etc, etc. What we’ve done over the last few centuries is come along and thrown some truly momentous spanners in the works. Still; the unbelievers think that we should just let the Earth get on with it while we do the same. Ok. What an interesting experiment…
Stupid quote#2: “What’s the point in curbing carbon emissions when China and India are building a coal-fired power station every week?”
Answer#2: Yes, yes, yes. That’s the attitude. Why bother? We’re buggered anyway.
Geeeeez people, since when did two wrongs make a right? Of course this makes the task before us even harder, but we’re tougher than that, aren’t we? This life we currently enjoy must be worth fighting for, if not for us, then for our children and our grandchildren.
An analogy that springs to mind here is that it’s like the guy who goes to the gym and is then perceived to undo all the good work he’s just done by having a burger and a cigarette afterwards. Yes, you could argue that there’s no point in going to the gym if he continues to eat junk food and smoke. I would argue, though, that whether or not he eats badly and smokes, he’s still ultimately doing himself more good by going to the gym than if he’d stayed away.
If by curbing our destructive ways of life we are – at best – just cancelling out what China and India are doing; well then at least we’re doing something.
Dr Jorge Argibay also added this valid point: “It is precisely by doing something about carbon emissions that we can acquire the authority to ask China and India to do the same!” Exactly, thanks Jorge.
Quote#3: “The Earth will survive no matter what we do to it”
Answer#3: Perhaps. But we’re talking about our survival here, aren’t we? Excusing inaction by offering this quote is dumb at best. Surely we want to protect this planet’s ability to sustain life so that our ancestors can also enjoy life… don’t we? To say something like that shows up a selfish streak a mile wide.
Anyway, how do we know the planet will survive? Has it ever been tested like this before? I agree, that it’s managed to thaw its way out of an ice-age or two, but let’s remember: the earth has at its core a massive nuclear fusion reactor that’s hot enough to melt rock. So it’s not really surprising it has the capacity to thaw itself. But to cool itself when so many of its cooling mechanisms have been stripped away, altered or poisoned? Who really knows?
Stupid quote#4 “We’re not running out of fossil fuels. We have loads of oil, gas and coal left”
Answer#4: Agreed, but this oil and gas is continually getting harder and more expensive to find and extract. This also comes at great risk.
I’ll just sum up with these three words: Deep. Water. Horizon.
Stupid quote#5 “Climate change is a myth fabricated by the big corporations and governments of the world so that they can increase profits and raise taxes on the back of it”
Answer#5: So the entire world’s scientific community is on the payroll of the corporations? Oh please. That’s as silly as saying that George. W. Bush planned and executed 9/11. Admittedly, there are plenty of vested interests in keeping the climate change debate alive, but the fact that it’s made up simply to make money just doesn’t ring true.
As for the governments; well, they don’t need excuses to raise our taxes, let alone an excuse that costs as much as concocting something as big as climate change. Get real people.
In summary then…
So then, if like me, you find yourself confronted by climate change denialists who seem intent on spouting these ever-used quotations to back up their arguments, then please feel free to call upon the answers above, if like me, you also find that you can only ever think of a suitable repartee once the debate is over (usually around a week later in my case).
Of course you are probably clever enough to counter to these dumb-assed quotes for yourself. If you do have cleverer, wittier or shrewder answers to these arguments than mine, then please let me know and I’ll add then to this post (and also use them myself, if I may). Thanks.
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, then do join the discussion on the facebook page. The more contentious the better please…
So, the International Energy Agency has told us that energy related carbon emissions reached an all time high last year. Not really surprising, but is this going to make a jot of difference to some of the nonsense being emitted by climate change denialists? I doubt it.
After the recession afforded the Earth a little breathing space in 2008 and 2009, we are now back to our old ways and pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Energy sector emissions in 2010 reached a staggering 30.6 gigatonnes, or, put another way: 30,600,000,000 kilograms.
Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t have anything against climate change denialists per se; and I honestly think that there needs to be a counter balance within this debate. What does frustrate me, however, is the notion that climate change has been conjured up by those in power to hike up taxes and inflict any number of horrible schemes upon us – the innocent public. Let’s be realistic here people; they’ll raise taxes anyway.
I can fully appreciate the uncertainty inherent in climate science: unforeseen feedback loops, oceanic thermal currents and the unpredictability of global weather patterns. I mean the BBC weather people almost always get it wrong over the 5 day forecast; let alone the next century. (And if you can’t trust the BBC, then who can you trust?)
Because of this uncertainty and the gradual, almost imperceptible nature of climate change, it is very easy for us humans to wonder if this is for real and if we should really believe the hype.
Well, lets ask ourselves: what’s actually at stake? Anything that’s really important to us?
Off the top of my head I would say:
- Global food and pharmaceutical production (we kind of need food, and drugs are pretty handy too)
- Potential mass migration (the UK seems to struggle with just a few plumbers from Poland)
- Life in the oceans (no more fish fingers, dagnammit)
- Many of the Earth’s plant and animal species (us included)
- The whole space and time continuum (well, maybe I made that one up).
So that’s just a tiny part of the list, but I think some of the stuff above is pretty important. Don’t you?
When it comes to denial, it’s like I said: many, many, many of the climate scientists’ predictions are not set in stone and may never happen (hopefully). However, there are some things that science seems pretty certain about:
- CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact.
- Greenhouse gases are partially responsible for maintaining Earth at a nice cosy (average) temperature. Fact.
- We have just pumped record levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Fact.
To me this looks like the climate scientists may be onto something when they tell us that putting extra CO2 into the system may have some dodgy results for all of us.
Now, if we take these scientific certainties versus the high stakes, we come up with the chance – I repeat; the chance – that our climate will be adversely effected. In light of this, would it not be wise to be a little bit cautious? Just a tad? You know: curb the emissions, find alternatives to power our lives, change some of our destructive behaviour: that kind of thing.
I admit that there are people out there who would have us all living back in the Measly Middle Ages, but I’m not one of them and I certainly don’t want that. However, when people are shouting, and posting and blogging and digging and tweeting about how climate change is a hoax, perhaps they wouldn’t mind easing off a touch and looking at the certainties; there are a scary amount of them.
So there it is; another blog having a pop at the denialists (I still don’t know if that’s a real word). But, in my defence, these guys are always doing a little “I told you so” dance when a piece of hard scientific evidence backs up their argument. I am now doing the same; so there.
Energy related emissions are at a record high. Isn’t it time even the sceptics try to do something about this?
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…