Okay, let’s jump into some data here.
Now from the outset, I want to say there are some really good sources for information on this subject, which I encourage anyone interested in the topic to avail themselves of, and that I will fold into the path here as we go. Just be careful not to get caught up in the mudslinging and ad hominem attacks.
But what I want to speak about first is probably the most obvious flaw in the proposal about human-caused climate change, at least the way it is being presented to the public.
Stop me if I’m wrong here, but if you take the average person on the street and ask them what the global warming argument is, they’ll say: ‘humans release co2 from burning fossil fuels and the extra co2 traps heat and that makes the earth warmer’.
And that’s probably being generous to the average person, but in any case, this is being pitched as a straightforward cause and effect: humans do (A) and then (B) occurs. This is the way it’s presented not only as historical fact, but as contemporary fact.
Except, historically speaking, it’s not true. At all. In fact, it’s exactly the reverse. Based on the historical data, the temperature goes up first, and then, sometimes hundreds of years later, the co2 follows.
There is actually no particular debate about on this, on either side of the fence. Even the graphs that Al Gore trots out in his movie show this, if you look hard enough. Although he neglects to mention this, to be charitable, or outright hides it, to be not so charitable.
It is, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, a plain historical fact that this simplistic cause and effect relationship does not exist. The climate system is simply too complex to parse things in simple linear cause and effect terms.
Now there are, to be fair, many possible explanations for why this might be, that still allow for humans affecting global warming with co2 emissions but all of them open up a realm of technical complexity that the average person has little hope of grasping. So it is not talked about, in the wider public debate. The amount of systems theory, chemistry and physics you need to grasp this situation the way it’s really being discussed is an insurmountable barrier for the media.
To me, personally, this starts to look like a bit of scrambling, on the part of anthropocentric global warming advocates, and no matter how hard anyone tries, that’s exactly what every attempt to ‘set the record straight’ degenerates into. They’ll happily let you keep believing the simple version of this science, even though it’s completely backwards, and when you question it, the whole thing spirals down into realms of technical ambiguity that no one is able to untangle satisfactorily. One argument depends on another depends on another. It’s turtles all the way down.
So it really is a kind of open secret, along with probably dozens of similar facts. Because you can’t make it go away, and as soon as you open that door, your simple public opinion slogan is exposed as some expedient obfuscation. An inconvenient truth, indeed.
Anyone with an ounce of interest can find this out, but from that point on it’s fingers in the dike time for the campaign of climate hysteria, and it starts to turn into something like a factual debate, not a reign of terror, and certainly not ‘solved science’. So the mouthpieces who would like to mobilize public opinion on this basis say nothing, because you can’t get public hysteria on the basis of a nuanced scientific assessment. I’d like to think I’m fairly smart, and I’ve put more than a little time into trying to sort this out. If I cannot resolve this to my satisfaction, then there’s essentially no chance that the public debate will ever be resolved on the basis of the science that exists right now.
So the solution, apparently, is not to resolve it on the science at all. Or perhaps as little as possible. But rather on scare tactics, ad hominem attacks, mob psychology and propaganda.
This is exactly the sort of cynical political demagoguery that I’d like to see shit canned. Al Gore’s movie is the best example, but not the only one. He has an hour and half to explain the facts and make his case. A real case, hopefully. You can probably assume that people who pay money to sit for a lecture want to know. But no, that’s not what he does. If he’s confident in his conclusions, then he should be confident that if he shows you the whole picture, you’ll probably come down on his side of the debate. But he doesn’t do that. It’s not education, it’s theater.
So let us put to rest the notion that he or anyone else who’s selling you this hellworld scenario, is simply a benevolent, objective, concerned citizen. He knows the argument has holes and he’s hiding them exactly the way any expert politician should do. It’s a bill of goods, and you’re being asked to accept it at face value. In fact, they’re counting on most of you to do exactly that, and walk out of the theater, or get up from the television, and be scared out of your wits.
But you’re being manipulated. Nothing is settled. Nothing is solved. Nothing is clear and unambiguous. Anyone who says differently is fucking lying to you. And chances are, the person who tells you this stuff knows that they are lying to you. They just hope you won’t call them on it. If they can stampede you into some sweeping social and economic policy agenda, that’s sufficient for their purposes. Whether you actually understand it or not is surplus to requirements. And if there’s a good chance that you might jump ship, (which there is) then it’s really in their interest to keep you in the dark.