Climate Change Is Science-Based, So Why The Quasi-Religious Bigotry And Vitriol?

Throughout history, those who have chosen not to believe in psychic predictions of impending world doom, or of retributional accountability about to be meted out by a soon-to-return higher power; but instead, elected to maintain a healthy scepticism, have been vindicated, when predicted events failed to materialise.

Equally, in science, top marks have gone to those choosing to reject the mass acceptance of the apparently obvious; like ‘The Earth is Flat’, or, ‘The Earth is the Centre of the Universe - the Sun, Stars, and Planets revolve around it’.

The foundation for both these beliefs is still apparent today. Suspend science for a moment and look to a clear horizon. Doesn’t it look like the edge? Likewise, look up at the night sky. Doesn’t it feel like you’re at the centre? Don’t we still refer to the sun coming up, and going down, when in fact it’s our world which is turning?

My point is that whilst we accept the science, we must do so in defiance of what appears to us to be real. No news there - as humans our perception is frequently in conflict with reality.

So too, with Climate Change, which continues to polarise opinion, even as the facts surrounding it evolve and change. For example, over recent years, in the absence of scientific evidence supporting it, (coupled with contrary scientific evidence that suggests the Earth is actually cooling), fear-mongering over Global Warming has been forced to devolve into fear-mongering over the more ambiguous Climate Change.

Yet still, those of us who continue to maintain a healthy scepticism about the issue, are frequently vilified as ‘Climate Change Deniers’, in the same way that non-believers in whatever religion holds sway in any given country, are routinely denigrated by many of those who choose to believe with ‘absolute faith’ in their religion’s vision of God. But faith is not the same as science. Faith requires only itself, it has no need for proof.

At least us heretics don’t have to fret over being burned at the stake for our contrarian views. Far too much carbon emitted by a human body incinerated on an open fire. (Did you know that there’s a growing push to ban both burial and cremation of the dead? I’m told mummification ticks the most green boxes.....)

But, I digress.

There is certainly a significant body of scientific evidence supporting the fact that the Earth is undergoing a sustained period of Climate Change. But it’s not a recent phenomenon. Climate Change is part of the Earth’s natural cycle, and has been present, in varying degrees of severity, since the World began. Ice Ages, anyone?

What is new, and the nub of this article, is the way in which humans are now being asked, no, demanded, not only to worship at the altar of The Undeniable Need to Combat Climate Change, but to also accept responsibility for creating the problem.

And, should we choose to disagree, being ridiculed with further Messianistic zeal, by those who claim to have ‘seen the light’.

What’s worse, those of us presently occupying the industrially developed parts of the planet are expected to pick up the tab for the cost of offsetting the atmospheric pollution legacy of generations past, as well as the emissions of Third World and developing nations in the present, via consumer cost-adding Emissions Trading Schemes (ETS), or directly, via Carbon Taxes

I believe it’s not just questionable to suggest that humans have the power to change the planet, (excepting a nuclear holocaust, I grant you), but ridiculous to believe that the shifting around of enormous sums of money, via ill-conceived Emissions Trading Schemes or Carbon Taxes, will have any impact on climate at all. Forcing the legislation may well make the world’s Greens and Climate Change True Believers feel warm all over, but I believe the planet will continue to make its own call as to whether it feels warm, or cold. Or anywhere in between.

Well, if humans aren’t responsible, who is?

Surely, recent and currently occurring extreme natural disasters throughout the world must remind us that Mother Nature is not only always in charge, but also expends immeasurably more energy than us, and as such, is responsible for more carbon emissions and atmospheric pollution, as well as literally Earth-shattering change through volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, than we as humans could possibly bring about.

And please don’t say in that preaching tone, “It’s only because of what humans have done, that Nature’s cycle is being disrupted.” In the great scheme of things, we’ve only been here five minutes. That’s just more of the quasi-religious fervour and zeal that I’m questioning. Emotive overhype that adds nothing to what deserves to be a rational debate.

First World Governments use emotive and deceptive terminology to continue the sell. For instance, when claiming that their climate change policies are about reducing carbon pollution, they’re implicitly manipulating ingrained, but these days irrelevant, fears about the life-threatening effects of atmospheric carbon pollutants, (ie carbon particles in coal dust, and sooty smoke).

Governments in developing and Third World countries aren’t concerned with hyping up ETS’s. Their populations live every day with the life-threatening risk of actual airborne carbon pollutants, resulting from older ‘dirty’ technology still in use in their worlds. But, any real steps towards effective anti-pollution legislation in developing nations will have to wait a long time, while their governments maintain focus on achieving huge increases in productive industrial output. And, as an unavoidable by-product, add global carbon emissions at a commensurate rate.

Which begs the question; What’s the point of a minority of countries extorting 'feel-good' Climate Change taxes, which can't (and, of course, aren't intended to), make any difference to the Global Atmosphere?

To me, it's like putting a teaspoon of distilled water into a polluted waterway. Nice gesture, but to what practical end?

If Carbon doesn’t mean physical airborne pollutants, what does it mean?

In reality, Emissions Trading Schemes and Carbon Tax proposals are aimed at reducing emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), which, as we all know, is a gas. The gas that plants ‘breathe in’. The gas we humans emit, every time we breathe out.

But, because we know from our continued existence that Carbon Dioxide does us no harm, using the correct terminology doesn’t offer the rich vein of fear and trepidation evoked by the more manipulative short-form ‘Carbon’, in rallying calls like ‘The War on Carbon’.

Neverthless, clearly stated or not, Carbon Dioxide has been identified as the root cause of Climate Change, by large numbers of people whose hearts are no doubt in the right place. But when they wave off dissenting views on Climate Change with self-righteous statements like “It’s a no-brainer”, I’m more concerned about where their heads are at.

There's a lot more to this story.

In the interests of keeping to the point of this article, I haven’t expanded the case for more clarity and less misinformation about Carbon, CO2, and Climate Change here.

Instead, I’ve written a separate article about it, featuring science-based allegations that CO2 has been wrongly targeted as a primary cause of Climate Change. (You can find it by clicking the link below this article).

Meantime, I’m simply asking the True Believers to get off the moral high ground, and give the rest of us the courtesy of at least showing a willingness to learn from the seemingly obvious, but found-to-be-flawed beliefs of history; opening their minds to the possibility that ‘Fixing Climate Change’ is anything but a no-brainer; easing up on the self-righteous fervour and emotive overhype; and respecting the right of others to hold, and express a dissenting, even evolving, point of view.

Because we’re all in this together.

.

©Copyright writeronline. All rights reserved.