Loading ...
Shades of Green: Why Climate Change is Divisive—and Why It Shouldn’t Be
Written by Elizabeth CrenshawJuly 15, 2009 – 4:30 pm
Climate change is frequently referred to as a hot-button issue. It’s a “platform” issue, with political parties taking definite stands on either side. Both parties are guilty of misrepresenting information and not always backing up the research that feeds policies. As much as I admire Al Gore, I have wondered if his championing of the cause has hurt its progress, especially on a grassroots level. An issue that affects the whole globe should have the potential to bring people together. Political figures are polarizing, but the two parties are not the only groups responsible for this division.
The media certainly has a role in dividing people. It is no secret that certain networks cater to certain belief systems. However, there comes a point at which this manipulation becomes dangerous. I have been appalled by some of the coverage I have seen in which facts are blatantly disregarded in favor of keeping up ratings.
The concept of climate change is unsettling. Many people would rather believe that it’s not happening, or that humans have nothing to do with it, and it is easy to ignore a problem when its worst case scenarios are projected to occur long after we are gone. However, the largest reason for the divide is due to yet another divide: the gap between what scientists believe and what the public believes.
A recent study commissioned by the Pew Research group revealed that on many major issues, the majority of the scientific community and the majority of Americans disagree completely about what is fact or fiction. Though many Americans don’t agree with scientists, at least two thirds of the public holds scientists and engineers in “high regard” and more than 80 percent say that science has positively affected the country.
If this is true, why don’t we overwhelmingly accept the concepts that the scientific community does? According to the survey, two thirds of Americans believe that there is currently “lively debate” among scientists about whether or not climate change exists. There is no such debate taking place in the scientific community. Eighty-four percent of scientists believe that humans are contributing to climate change, while only 49 percent of the public accepts it.
Scientists are concerned about this divide, establishing that they do not think that the media does a very good job of educating us about what is fact and what is not. Considering that this is how so many of us get our information, we should care about it too.
The latest anti-climate change campaign mixes fact and fiction. Alan Carlin has been thrust into the national spotlight as the rogue EPA scientist who has been silenced about the “truth” about climate change. He is being used to push the idea that climate change does not exist—just as the largest piece of legislation ever devoted to issue is up for a vote in the Senate. It should be noted that while Carlin has been an employee of the EPA’s for more than 30 years, he made his career as an economist. His job is not to make certain the science behind policy is true; his job is to analyze the economic implications of policy once it is written.
EPA officials admit that they were confused as to why Carlin even submitted a report of this nature, as he is not qualified to make recommendations in the area. He was not silenced; he was asked to use the time taxpayers were paying him for to work on projects in which he could add value. That’s a big distinction.
Carlin believes that there is data that conflicts with data confirming climate change, but what he is really concerned about got less attention. It is painful to watch Carlin on network news shows in which inflammatory lines about polar bears and UN are tossed around. He is visibly uncomfortable as his research is manipulated to prove whatever point the host is trying to make. What Carlin was trying to educate Americans about is the fact that EPA has not been consistently given updated research about climate change during the past three years. Our federal government should be double- and triple-checking research with internal employees before making recommendations. But this valid point was not the one the American public heard.
We should demand better. We deserve to be a well-informed nation that can discuss issues with a solid background in what created them. Climate change should be an issue that unites, not divides, us. As a nation, we have been presented challenges in the past, and we have always risen to the occasion, working together, helping our neighbors, with every American doing his or her part.
Climate change isn’t about whom you voted for or what news station you watch—it’s about the future of this country and this planet. It’s about changing our lifestyles for human beings we will never meet, because it’s the right thing to do. It’s about reaching for new technologies now to provide for our grandchildren later. It’s about embracing the best in ourselves to bring out the best in our country.
Elizabeth Crenshaw is LEED accredited and works for EPB in Strategic Planning, but her views are her own. Originally from South Carolina, Elizabeth moved to Chattanooga after graduating from Warren Wilson College in 2007.
Posted in Shades of Green |
|
|
3 Comments »
Most greenhouse gas emissions come from nature, e.g. from volcanoes, right? And US greenhouse emissions, while large, are smaller than those of China and India, and the 3rd world will probably increase emissions a lot faster than we, right? Jesus Christ said some people strain at a gnat but swallow a camel. Not to say the US should do nothing, but keep things in perspective; lopsidedness is divisive, eh?
If “84% of scientists believe that humans are contributing to climate change,” but only 5% (wild guess)of scientists are climate scientists, then most scientists believe in man-made climate change not as experts but as onlookers. If 84% believe, then courage and independent thought are probably more concentrated among skeptics who buck the popular tide, such as the Nobel Laureate (Ivar Giaever) and
82 other Ph.D.s who signed a Cato Institute ad saying “the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated”–which is not quite the same as saying “people don't change the climate.” Suppressing rather than respecting dissent is divisive, eh?–it hardens minds rather than trying to change them.
I recently ran across this in a book that was discussing the research and results of experiments on a subject COMPLETELY unrelated to climate change, but I thought it was good advice.
“Ever since Sir Francis Bacon, in the early seventeenth century, scientists and philosophers of science have cautioned against the tendency to reject evidence that conflicts with our preconceptions, and to make assumptions about what assuredly would be true if only the appropriate measurements or experiments could be performed. The ultimate danger of this kind of selective interpretation…is that a compelling body of evidence can be accumulated to support any hypothesis. The method of science, though, evolved to compel scientists to treat all evidence identically, including the evidence that conflicts with the preconceptions, precisely for this reason. 'The human understanding', as Bacon observed, 'still has this peculiar and perpetual fault of being more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives, whereas rightly and properly it ought to give equal weight to both.'”
Why Climate Change is Divisive – and Should Be
Elizabeth Crenshaw’s article is one of the reasons why the debate about Anthropogenic Global Warming is divisive, and should be. Basically, her entire article was written to say – if you don’t believe in man made global warming – then you are an idiot. (Though she did say it nicely). The problem that I and my fellow skeptics have, is simple – on every prediction the GW crowd has made, they have been wrong – including, lower temperatures, less hurricanes, less tornados, no rise in the level of the oceans, no rise in the temperature of the oceans, more ice on the poles, etc., and they are very fast and loose with their facts.
It is important to remember that all AGW claims are made off of COMPUTER MODELS, not actual facts. There is nothing wrong with computer models to predict the future (though it doesn’t seem to work for the weather three days from now), if you can account for all the variables. Climate Alarmist models don’t know how to factor in clouds and several variables with the oceans. And computer models can be manipulated to show whatever the researcher wants. Our government has invested 79 BILLION dollars of your money (and mine) attempting to prove and convince you that man made global warming exists. If you are a scientist or institution, and you want some of that money – you will come up with the right conclusions regardless of the facts. (Exxon has spent $34 Million fighting it – and they used their own money not yours).
Ms. Crenshaw’s claim that 83% of scientists believe in AGW – is not true, over 31,000 scientists around the world have signed onto the Petition Project claiming that there is no convincing evidence that man made Global Warming exists. (No one was paid to set up the petition and no one was paid to sign the petition). http://www.oism.org/pproject/ Scientific “Peer Review” studies are showing that man made global warming is nothing more than a myth. Over the millions of years of the Earth’s existence, it has been hotter and cooler; there has been more ice and less. Can anyone say what the right temperature is suppose to be, how much ice is supposed to be on the North Pole – (there have been times when there was no ice at the pole). The entire basis of the AGW crowd is based upon Mann’s Hockey Stick Theory, which has been proven to be wrong. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey. The amount of CO2 spewed into the air by man is almost immeasurable when compared to the amount nature produces – and no scientific link has been shown that CO2 can cause any warming – water vapor, in the other hand, may have a huge effect.
I will paraphrase Albert Einstein’s quote – What is important in science is not the hundreds of experiments that prove your theory correct, but the one experiment that proves it wrong.
Ms. Crenshaw, you write that we should demand better – you are correct, unfortunately you are not talking about yourself, just the unwashed like me that don’t believe in the AGW god.. You claim that AGW is about the future of this country and the planet – I agree, just not with your vision of the future, and that is why it should be divisive. If you are interested in learning the truth, I will submit to you scientific “peer reviewed” studies that disagree with your opinions about AGW. I hope you take me up on this, because as the last line in your opinion read, it is about embracing the best in ourselves to bring out the best in our country. It would probably be a good idea to push for the best with the truth. Please start with this link http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3771