Being a "skeptic" of climate change is both intellectually dishonest and dangerously out of sync with reality.
"Skepticism" assumes at least a token nod to rational thought which is absent in the climate "debate." In this context, skepticism is a particularly craven form of objection. In an attempt to salvage some form of credibility, "skeptics" adopt this pseudo-scientific (yet another hijacking of science in the name of anti-science) stance, in which the "skeptic" acknowledges that the climate changes (the term "natural cycles" is often bandied about), but that they are awaiting more evidence (perhaps from on high?) regarding the human contribution. This lacks logical ground on which to stand. The definition of climate is that, over time, it changes. True. However, their logic fails on the second argument due to an inherent lack of scientific literacy. The "more evidence" they are waiting for is already here. Humans are unequivocally causing climate change. What the skeptics are waiting for is a smoking gun. Well, there are numerous "smoking guns" of climate change, but by their nature, they require at least some familiarity with science to understand. The evidence they are looking for is here, today. It just takes the right tools to properly see it.
But a misunderstanding of science is not the real reason for this pervasive skepticism. The real reason is a fear of change. This fear reflects the false pretense of one who believes that this country is no longer great. It is a form of cowardice premised on the erroneous belief that to mitigate climate change somehow means a reversion to a less fulfilling quality of life. It shows the hubris of a once great country, a country where people look inward not in self reflection, but out of an uncertain longing for a way of life they know (deep, deep in their hearts) to be untenable.
Taking meaningful action on climate change and prospering as a country are not two mutually exclusive notions. Thus far, not addressing climate change has led to our economy shedding manufacturing jobs that will likely never be replaced, our universities seeing grad students in science and engineering leave for jobs overseas, and many of our greatest companies historically faltering. By addressing climate change, we can create new employment sectors and revive our technological prowess on the world stage.
The industrial revolution, the space age, and the internet age were all ushered in on the power of American innovation. Have we exhausted our resources? Must we take a backseat for the next "age"? To creep inward as a country, to cling to our so-called way of life would be the easy option. Easy like crowding around our televisions watching Walter Cronkite narrate as Soviet cosmonauts plant their hammer and sickle on the moon's surface. We are not a country accustomed to taking a back seat and I believe that we still possess the measured self-confidence required to tackle the problem of climate change head on.
Other problems in history, be they wars, dictators, countries, are but trees compared to the immense forest of a problem we now face. Unfortunately, we may not be wired to address problems on this scale. We address problems that we can readily identify -- another country invades us? Fight back! Problems that affect people we can identify with -- they harmed who? Sally from down the street? Well, let's catch that criminal! With climate change, we cannot easily label the villain because, on many levels, we are all responsible for its effects. And its effects, though severe and accelerating, are not as visceral as seeing Hitler sack Paris. Or watching a ghostly image of a Soviet cosmonaut orbiting the planet. The "skeptics" are reacting to this strange, unprecedented situation in a very human way -- by denying it exists. But if there is to be any hope of a solution, we cannot let fear and uncertainty trammel our resolve.
No comments:
Post a Comment