Climate Change: A Tale Of Two Forces

On the debate abouthan climate cge Each side will claim the other to be irrational

All I see is one side skeptically debating the facts as presented about man-made global warming and climate change (or whatever it is they call it now. The narrative and its terms shift as the facts erase their claims I reckon). They point, with some validity, to many studies that bring to question the accepted beliefs in what causes global warming; not to mention it's been strenuously and convincingly argued the entire climate change deck of cards is built on lousy models and thus a faulty premise. Moreover, having become a highly politicized process. And with politics comes cronyism. Enter people like Al Gore who score a buck off this ignorance or entrepreneurs jumping on the green craze by setting up environmental adventures like Tesla mostly on the dime of taxpayers through subsidies and tax credits. It doesn't matter, despite its impressive technological attributes, it's unprofitable. Society is expected to cover its losses because the narrative dictates it.

Interestingly, Tesla is not accessible to the middle-class given its lofty six-figure price. It remains a novelty for the rich; 'climate indulgences for the wealthy' as it were. Ironically, in a small, weird way, it's the rich who are spearheading climate change!

Absent on this side is vapid terms and name-calling that only confuse the debate. Outside some conservatives claiming it's a 'hoax' I don't see much calls for 'arresting' climate change scientists who likely fudged the numbers.

The belief is so strong that even if climate change changes again they'll forever just shift along with it thus leaving them in a perpetual state of climate fear and notion of 'needing to take action now'.

This is where hyper language takes over. They will claim their opponents (science is never about us versus them) are "anti-science" and harking back to their witch hunting impulses are "deniers" and appealing to authority and their inquisitional totalitarianism they assert "we must imprison" and of course my personal favorite empty claim it's all 'settled' even though climate is an ever-changing phenomena.

There's no such thing as 'settled' climate and weather. Ever wake up in the morning and notice the temperature changes? Same with climate over time. It varies.

So. I ask. Who exactly is acting irrational with religious cult-like tendencies?

But it's not about climate change now is it? It's about system change.

Around 15 years ago I read a now mostly forgotten article in The National Post. In the opinion of the author (I can't for the life of me remember her name so I have to go on memory) climate change was about uprooting capitalism. Her (prescient) assessment led her to conclude climate change was just a red herring to change the system. And as we observe closer, we see that we're indeed attempting to change it. Just look at the language we use. 'It's rigged' and 'income inequality' and 'gender gaps' and 'fair wage' and 'pay your fair share' all culminating into one neat calls to 'eat the rich'.

Shamanistic economic jargon now matches the climate change gibberish. 

Note, I'm not suggesting none of things don't exist in some form or another. Humans are flawed and the system is indeed imperfect. I just don't see the solutions offered as being reasonable is all.

Since this article, they've let that mask slip and now acknowledge the only way to deal with the "settled science" (in of itself an ignorant statement) is to get rid of capitalism altogether because they see it as an obstacle to their goals and objectives.

Capitalism is the enemy see? The NP writer was right all along.

Personally, I think it's the entire environmental movement and its insane declarations of war on fossil fuels who are not permitting healthy debate. After all, one would think they'd be happy if they were proven wrong, no? I mean, who wants to die in a freak tsunami slamming against New York City, right? Yet, something tells me if things shift for the better (recall climate doomsayers have been warning death and destruction is right around the corner since the early 1900s and have always generally been wrong. As recently as the 1970s we were told it was a 'global cooling'. The 70s wasn't that long ago and it's surprising people aren't more skeptical about such claims. Are we that indebted to the notion of 'just in case' rhetoric?) it wouldn't be cause for celebration in their ranks.

Well, for starters I can understand why. First off, grants would dry up. Second, and esoterically more important, no one wants to be wrong about something they've poured so much of their energy and passion into.

Alas, that's their problem. If they couldn't take a second to stop and smell the roses of rationalism, then perhaps they're condemned to another type of doom.


  1. Couldn't the climate patterns be the result of any number of factors?
    It's not entirely out-of-the-question that the effects of pollution and development could be having, maybe, a partial effect on the weather and environment and what-not.
    Nor out-of-the-question that some 6,000-year-old pattern is at play as well.
    Each side seems to have their own myopic agenda in which their conclusions are absolutely "the last word on" this (or any other) subject---when legitimate open-minded research is really what's needed and what should be being pursued.

    1. Yes, but it's ONE side advocating for imprisonment, excessive regulations and a change to capitalism that directly impact our lives based on what again? I don't think skeptics are myopic but rather just following evidence reasonably.

    2. True! ANY kind of underlying "power-and-control" objective can only be detrimental to accomplishing anything productive and enhancing.


Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.