At least nobody from those who engage in the debate.. Even those who advocate for the cause seem to have been lost in the fog of their own arguments. Over the past years of this troublesome quarrel, scientists, businessmen, politicians and activists have struggled to gain an edge over each other's position but with little to no luck.
A lot of arguments have been thrown onto the table and it seems that most people agree that there is a form of climate change occurring. Now, I am not going to copy-paste the arguments here. This is google's job and certainly not my intention. Let's bear in mind something important before we start. Truth is never democratic but all decisions about this matter, whether pro or against, seem to be relying on a consensus.
Very few actions have been taken in defense of the cause against global warming. Even the ones who claim that something should be done have done next to nothing. Even worse, a lot of lies and myths have been injected into the argument in a desperate attempt to push certain policies forward. As I examine below the root cause of the problem is the form of enquiry and not the issue itself.
The Legacy
The subject of global warming re-emerged once again right after Trump was nominated president. Almost instantaneously the "science front", traditionally supported from liberal politicians, rushed to scorn Trump for his disbelief in climate change. Now, there is nothing wrong in accusing a politician about their belief in something especially when data is ignored. Thing is, the only difference of Trump and Obama on the subject was that the fact that the first was honest, avoiding sensationalist nonsense in his narrative.8 years of Obama and liberal legislations demonstrated that politics have nothing to do with climate change. Obama ruled the planet for almost a decade and the Kyoto Treaty failed miserably. How can one newly elected president do anything when the most outspoken liberal democrat bowed to the same status quo about the issue? Trump is honest on the matter. He simply doesn't buy the problem as it has been presented. Obama on the other hand never walked the talk even if he claims to be fighting global warming.
Ambiguous Science
The scientists that claim that humans cause climate change, don't treat the situation objectively. Although there is evidence that anthropogenic factors do cause part of the problem, there is absolutely no evidence that going the opposite way or even stop doing what we are doing, will reverse the situation. People picture climate change like a Walt Disney cartoon where once we stop the "evil force" the good one will shine. This stance is both juvenile and dangerous and this is why even scientists engaging in this debate do not take each other seriously.Missing the Point
A business man tends to see opportunities when problems are presented. A scientist on the other fact, due to the methodology and funding, will most likely be locked in an anxious close-minded scientific ritual, chasing correlations on SPSS begging for peanuts from some government grant to keep his practice in play. Usually, when it comes to scientific research people do not dare to pull out once they are in it too deep. The investment is too great to jeopardize the whole line of research and one would not want to render all past work useless. While there are billions of dollars thrown in finding statistical correlations about how the planet is boiling up, only a fraction is dedicated in researching ways to make the problem, aka CO2 into an energy solution. Remember, most government-funded science is there for making policies, not contributing towards innovation.Intellectual Hubris
We are wasting valuable time, energy and resources trying to tackle a massive issue on a global scale. It might sound elegant to try to save the planet, but in reality we are looking after our own asses, our economies, our nation. The idea of "saving the planet" belongs to the realm of science fiction. If climate changes indeed, it would be wiser to regulate specific closed ecosystems like those of cities. The projects can be planned properly and be economically feasible. Geoenginnering the entire planet is ludicrous and sadly those who advocate science and objective reasoning the most, tend to push this absurdity to the public.I don't pretend to be a geologist or an environmental specialist. What I do know is that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The claims that can be asserted with no evidence can be dismissed just as easy. Before we even dare to think about science and policy we need to evaluate if our initial argument is valid. One can have the best tools in their garage with the most accurate diagrams and still be able to destroy the entire house, trying to fix a car. The climate changes. Those who survive are not the ones who fight change but those who are most adoptable to it.
What I can say for certain is that CO2 is not a cause of global warming.
Al Gore proves this in the movie he starred in, An Inconvenient Truth.
The entire UN sponsored "find global warming" project was a scientific fiasco. It was a political project to get people to buy into carbon tax credits, so that people could be taxed more. Proponents of global warming will stay say 100s of scientist proved global warming, ignoring the fact that it was proven that 100s of UN scientists lied. (And they still will not release the model they used for their statements, saying, "Why should I give away decades of my research?")
We have also entered a new area of space. Astronomers have noted it being so. This information seems to be burried; nothing to see here, move along.
So, in the end, we have two active groups.
a group of people that care about the earth. But not really. Not if cuts into their life styles. And big corporations that are still polluting places out of sight aren't even talked about.
a group of politicians that want more taxes. This group is active and well funded. They hire writers and bloggers and internet trolls. They feed the MSM "news" reports. And they will never stop pushing for more taxes. They also seem to have a bottomless wallet from which to pay for their shenanigans.
I have the impression that climate scientists have stopped trying to falsify their theories, mainly because you don't get funding for that in the current political climate (pun intended). And after all, 98% of climate scientists believe they should get funding and tenure.
Real science would be busy trying to falsify what "everybody" sees as facts:
Is there climate change beyond what has happened in the past? If so:
Is the increase in greenhouse gases the main or only cause of this? If so:
Are the CO2 emissions by human activity the main or only cause?
If everybody really wants to "do something" about it, it would be nice to have some degree of certainty about what to do; we could be reducing CO2 emissions while we should be telling our cows to fart less or be complaining to the sun about its activity.
Next, if everybody really wants to "do something" about CO2 emissions, then there are plenty engineering solutions out there to do it, most of which have a worst-case scenario of "money lost, but no harm done". The fact that these available solutions aren't being implemented everywhere shows that few actually want to act even while being very loud about the need to act.
Follow the money.
Good exploration, but I find it seriously flawed in one way. "Obama ruled the planet for almost a decade" is not at all true. The opposition party controlled the US Congress for nearly all that time. In the American system, the legislative branch (Congress) is the primary lawmaking authority, has constitutional authority over treaties (to ratify them or not), and controls funding for all government programs. One could argue just as easily that Obama was one of the least powerful (even lame duck) presidents due to his inability to pass much meaningful public policy. Given that political reality, the Paris agreement was quite a milestone achievement, certainly one that had eluded his Democratic predecessor. Obama's views on climate change and those of his party have been consistent for a long time now. I agree that it's possible to analyze this issue objectively, but in order to be objective, I think you need to take that context into account.
Perhaps this is true in the U.S. I was having in mind international sanctions and treaties that went wrong. I believe those are the important ones to keep in mind. It seems that he wasn't able to control corporate policy. I think politicians, whether they reside in congress or the white house are merely tools for corporate interests. That is the take-home message. I don't think politicians shape world policies. Corporations do.
nd that's another reason why US calling other nations "autocracies' and undermining other nations economic interests is such a sham. it's essentially a luxury to pursue environmental changes
Excellent post @kyriacos! I could not agree more - it is a parallel, so it seems, along with politics, finance, social reform, education, etc, the information is shrouded by disinformation and the debate is lost in the rights and wrongs of interest groups - 'stakeholders' as they are appropriately named because it comes down to whose stake holds the biggest wallet to ensure short-term gain.
Steemit suffers from the same malfeasance!
THANK YOU
Great article.
That´s probably the most important topic in time. Thanks for sharing, upped and resteemed!
I would also add the tag 'nature' to get even more awareness...
Brilliant article mate!
Funny, I just posted on this today as well... was inspired by Carlson Tucker ripping apart another 98%'er:
Man-Made Climate Change is so obvious, it's not even worth discussing...
https://steemit.com/science/@alexpmorris/man-made-climate-change-is-so-obvious-it-s-not-even-worth-discussing
Hi @kyriacos :) About climate change: Throughout the history of our planet, there have been major shifts in temperatures that caused ice ages and global warming, and those were all naturally made. The reason that the climate change (caused by humans) they're referring to is not happening is because of the result of their measurement of the CO2 levels caused by us, which is not sufficient to bring about some changes in temperature.
But this is a good article. Kudos to you :)
I upvoted this post because it is well written but totally disagree with the premise. I had been involved in talks about Climate Change 20 years ago in Toronto among scientists and artists led by David Suzuki, a brilliant mind. Everything predicted back then is occurring and we have to realize that we are organic beings and there is only so much chemicals and pollution our bodies will and can tolerate, the same goes for the animals and plants of this earth. We now have a scarcity of fresh, drinkable water and some countries can no longer breathe fresh air, namely oxygen having been over-run by CO2 from industry. The only political ploy is being led by just that industry because they don't want to lose their money in taxes. Greed is at the head of trying to kill or maim people. Many diseases see to be ecologically related, like cancer and autos asthma, etc...
I don't doubt that indeed there is climate change taking place. The aftermath though, what we do about it, has been completely wrong in terms of public policy
It's a depressing picture.
Carbon taxes fall on the tax payers, often freezing people who cant afford it. I wonder what the sham behind that is, the real reason why. Canucks last PM, Harper, rejected Kyoto, I recall thinking at the time he was an ass but now realize it was a wise move. He didnt have other great environmental policies, but environmental activism has it's own share of dogma.much of which I fell for cuz as you said there are so few solutions --makes any seem good.
There are some innovators making good use of excess plastics, and the investment in solar and electric is promising.
the movie 'Cowspiracy' was important; shows what ppl are/aren't willing to give up. as so many enviro NGOs were bought up by factory farm agribusinesses, with the fatalistic attitude that ppl wont give up meat (esp. the convenience and low cost) anyway.
There is loophole in the Kyoto treaty that actually rewards you for having more CO2 emissions.
Humans do not have a good reputation with picking up after themselves but we do have a good track record turning our problems into opportunities.
Kind of hard to rule out Geo Engineering (chemtrails) as a factor don't you think?
Geo Engineering has been reported to happen from China but I don't think they can control the weather in the long run.
Also why would the "big guys" want to poison themselves?
Too many unknowns.
I think it is not definitive what the cause of global warming is. There are certainly merits to mention causes so we can plan ahead. Some additional factors I believe warrant research and may be significant enough to cover in articles like this:
Rather than get into an endless debate on why someone would do this, lets get our heads around what is happening. If you go looking for this evidence it will be very easy to find. If your interested in the truth I suggest the divide and conquer approach "what is happening" scientifically before you think about anything else.
Finally someone with a great answer and fully detailed one, i was looking for someone to mention this or HAARP it's the main cause of what's going on to the weather changing lately