** Long even for this author, we know your time is valuable. The information presented here has value for both sides of the Climate Change argument.
 |
| Climate Change Apathy Symbol |
Back in the day--that day before climate change became a spiritual manifestation of scientific study--advocacy articles were found only on the Editorial/Opinion page. Now, however, it seems these persuasive compositions number more than the fact-based informative pieces that made the public smarter for reading them. In its latest edition, Psychology Today added to the stew of information with an article entitled. Why People Don't Believe in Climate Change. Since this blog regularly contradicts the methods and conclusions on which current policy is based, it seems appropriate to look in the mirror and decide if such findings are helpful or harmful to the discussion of climate change.
The PT article follows the pattern of many such pieces and begins with its conclusion--Climate Change is real. After throwing out some important names and outdated statistics (2013), it gets down to the business of explaining why those who deny the science of climate change are endangering the planet and all mankind. (Note: the study on which the magazine chose to base its text comes from a data mining company (www.youGov.com) that produces studies for individual clients. Such studies are inherently flawed and contribute to the very problem on which this article focuses.)
Let's examine each position and see if this blog falls into any of these categories.
Belief vs. Proof
While not mentioned in the article per se, it should be noted that if environmentalists could simply prove, through well controlled, systematic study, that climate change exists, the importance of believing in it would not be an issue. To date, climate change studies have, more often than not, been data collection efforts and not any physical or real time study of the planet as a whole. These studies are lax in their methods and are often funded by clients or academic programs with a stated goal.
 |
| UN Secretary General Getty Image |
In the absence of physical proof (not statistical hypothesis), it is the scientific community that has substituted belief for proof. The study of climate change resembles a fanatical cult with its fearful predictions and narrow mindset.
An excellent example of this religious reaction was made recently by UN Secretary-General António Guterres whose public statement sounded more like a Southern Baptist Evangelical sermon than a professional objective and rational request for support. No citizen of the World should be subjected to such behavior from a UN representative.
This blog seeks to highlight good studies and critique poor ones. It explains how different scientific principles intertwine to keep planet Earth functioning properly. The science used in its explanations comes from hundreds of years of collective knowledge tested and ratified by hundreds of experiments. Climate Change is largely based on the observation of a single professor who lived in a coastal community that is now known to be kept warm by ocean currents and cloudy skies. Like baseball players, scientists fail as often as they score, but modern climatology cannot let itself believe in something different.
As long as the most high profile political organization in the World, believes in the end of civilization, there is no hope for those scientists who could actually provide some functional relief for localized environmental issues.
Naive Realism
Listed first in the article ahead of disinformation, this label blatantly calls out ordinary people for a lack of global concern. Accusing people of seeing the environment only from a naive and local perspective, the description is disrespectful, condescending and seeks to guilt people into following scientists who are just as naive and narrow in their beliefs.
As often mentioned, this blog points out that climate studies focus on wealthy population centers and ignore areas such as the open ocean or rural communities. When making their infrastructure based recommendations, there appears to be no sacrifice too great or too impractical for consideration. Is it the citizen who is naive or the scientist who believes in an alternative reality only visible on computer spreadsheets?
Disinformation
Focusing only on one source of disinformation, the article adopts an accusatory tone and calls out any group associated with "Big Oil" while again inferring that all information coming from fossil fuel companies is incorrect or propaganda. Without mentioning that organic fuels have been the primary source of energy for over five thousand years, it seems more likely that present day climate theory is the disinformation.
This blog uses organic chemistry as the basis for its position on climate change. Unlike climate theory that bases its study on weather trends, organic chemistry has mapped many environmental cycles which have been observed for decades.. While weather is important and can be symptomatic of environmental changes, it is NOT the problem.
Motivated Reasoning
This category is the most justified in the piece. At the same time, it is the most arrogant and impractical. Adopting the same derogatory attitude towards those who are not open-minded enough to make sacrifices for the planet, this description shows the clueless nature of the climate change community. For over sixty years, citizens have been physically and financially drained by every new environmental recommendation. Organic foods, catalytic converters, new heating systems, electric fireplaces (what a drag) and the list goes on and on and on. And yet, advocates and political factions push more and more changes that impoverish the world.
This blog regularly speaks to the false narrative that environmental problems are best solved by economic solutions. How many of your scientists own stock in companies that produce solar or wind power. If fossil fuel companies market their product, why would we not expect the solar, electric and wind industries to do the same. Both have an agenda that neither cares for the environment or the people who live in it.
So, Do I Believe in Climate Change?
To get the complete answer to that question, please visit our publications page and purchase the author's book on the subject. Here are a few statements that should give you a clue what the answer is
- Global warming an illusion created by those who do not know how to correctly program a computer with mathimatical formulas. Those who promote this concept still have not figured out that even if the world increases in temperature by 3 degrees F, the polar ice capes and the peaks of the highest mountains will still be below freezing for all or most of the year.
- Greenhouse gas theory is another illusion created by those who want clear skies and moderate temperatures all year round. Again, the inability to know how to use math properly and to understand that many factors come into play in atmospheric health, lock science into a fundamentally incorrect study of climate change.
- Climate change did not start with car exhaust, pesticides or acid rain. Climate change has its roots in the search for a clean energy source that started 150 years ago. Again, it is what scientists believe not what can be easily proven that hampers a solution to this important issue.
- Finally, it is clear that human bias is the most important factor in atmospheric changes which have endangered public health and wildlife. Humans are to blame but will they be the solution???