An inoculation from viral videos might not seem necessary, but let’s say you are talking to someone who’s thoroughly convinced by one that ...just seems wrong. Let’s say, you would like to do it with a clear head, instead of boiling one another’s blood or Snoozing them on Facebook. That’s how I felt when I decided to try setting aside bias a mere two minutes to watch one, promoting a best-selling book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.
Aside from greed or ignorance, if such a book, as penned by long-time and some say, infamous, climate change denier Marc Morano serves a benevolent purpose, it should be that of reason. After all, alarmists and inaccurate facts are the target, in the service of a saner approach. You're welcome to make your decisions as to the motives of The Daily Signal.
I certainly didn’t want to counter with, say, another viral video. My theme is, ‘we’ve got to apply some rigor to thinking for ourselves, rather than grab pre-fabricated totems for meaningful answers.’
So let’s dive in. The video's quite easy to find. https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/videos/the-lefts-myths-on-climate-change/856581877882740/
Respectfully, bringing up Gore here- if he jumped to a conclusion, as stated, about global warming, without a scientific consensus- doesn't negate what NASA has compiled. You may be familiar with- and can easily find, if you have time- its list supporting consensus from numerous scientific organizations. There is room for examining those, like you could examine the Cato Institute and ask if their funding affects their policies. But the factual presentation here has logical holes.
If one study involved 77 scientists, that's one study in a broader consensus of a larger number from which 97 % is derived- so that's not a useful piece of a logical argument.
There are, indeed, hundreds of factors contributing to a plus .8 degrees Celsius difference since 1980. In places, i.e. islands, where there's a verifiable and threatening change, we could look at that multitude. It's a dynamic planet, for sure. Bear in mind, this gentleman has a B.A. in Poli Sci, not an advanced science degree. It would be risible to say there's not a profitable vein in publishing a contrary argument. I've no desire to insult anyone's intelligence- that's contrary to communication- but this video doesn't pass muster, when Science is the standard evoked. (In candor, I have two B.A.'s in languages and only a modest, gentlemanly knowledge and curiosity about sceince.) That NASA compilation's here: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ .
There’s room for debate. But this video, in my opinion, caters to irrationality, which is the very quality it purports to debunk. There are strong words already out there about the motives. There’s always a serious consideration in balancing benefits to mankind with the viability of our ecosystem. It would be consequential- horrendously, so- to find out we’ve heeded the wrong voice: after alarmists have destroyed a community’s economy, or after skeptics have witnessed the bet they never took pay off in the death of the planet.
Before I could even get to the book itself, I’m confronted with this piece of poorly-reasoned propaganda. It predisposed me to think the book’s costumed in Reason. (The dramatist in me wants to say, ‘the masquerade, however, may prove at midnight to be the Mask of the Red Death.’ But that’s polemic territory. Let’s take the harder route of getting people invested in the satisfaction of using Reason. There’s plenty of fiery arguments in the blistering service of defending one line of reasoning or the other. At some point, a grill doesn’t need more fire- it’s ready for meat. It's time to get cooking.)
As you know, Science is about, for one, correlations, puzzles, data compilation- through the rigor of Scientific Method. It's not unusual -especially where I live at present- to find a negative reaction to the general sort of thought that goes into exploring the world in a scientific fashion. We come very, very close to factual answers, but there's always an opening to unveil an understanding as dogmatic. It's more common yet to find people who want to argue with prevailing hypotheseses without applying but the barest rigor to the facts they favor. Not being an expert is something some people take really personally- not a fact, but a pretty verifiable observation.
In the department of Verifiable Observation? Here's a decent piece for we laymen to debate: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/what-we-can-and-cant-say-about-arctic-warming-and-us-winters
If you would like to ponder the debate- and everyone’s free to join- at least consider the rationality of the argument you adopt. I know people on either extreme of the political spectrum who don’t want, really, to think for themselves. Perhaps they rely so heavily on the emotional satisfaction of a quick post meant to insulate them from the smarty-pants arguments or sheer volume of facts. It’s not often even a very intelligent person can accrue a considered, rigorous point of view on topics outside their professional or academic experience. It might be the fashion of the times to discard manners and flail at one another with a sort of fight-or-flight trigger, evoked. People feel personally besieged by their differences. Sometimes there are very real consequences and moral questions that can’t be reached beneath emotionally-charged rhetoric. A lot of things dress up in the guise- and some of the language- of reason. These mislead people who have the best of intentions-as well as many who only want an argument composed of a few facts to try to cudgel one another in an anti-social fashion. Not everyone you disagree with is worth under-estimation.
Well, enough said, on my part, for now. I hope, if you feel this way, think this way, you feel that much less alone in being reasonable. It’s not the only useful quality in Life. The climate issue- the environment- is one place worthy of Reason.
All the best.
