fncceo
Diamond Member
- Nov 29, 2016
- 42,726
- 35,313
- 3,615
It seems these days, a lot of folks are obsessed with a phenomenon called "Climate Change". Apparently, as the phenomenon is explained, human beings are directly impacting the climate of The Earth in a way that will cause all life on Earth to go extinct in a fairly short time (historically speaking).
Like many beliefs, the belief in catastrophic climate change is based partly on observation and partly on indoctrination. The percentage of those parts vary differently from individual to individual.
Like most beliefs, there is an important drive in believers to make sure as many people as possible believe in the exact same thing. Those who can't be convinced to believe must be marginalized as "anti the belief", a "denier" of the belief", infidel, apostate, heretic, are also frequently used. The purpose of the marginalization is to assure that the tenets of the belief cannot be challenged, as anyone who might challenge the belief is already labeled and their input is therefore invalid.
As for the belief in catastrophic climate change, it is pointless to argue the minutiae of the belief such as variations in global temperature, percentage of gasses in the atmosphere, and predictions on how these may or may not affect humans on the world. It's pointless because there is no way for a normal individual to verify or disprove claims. They must be taken as articles of faith. Another reason they are pointless is that they don't change the fundamental questions of, "What is actually going on?", "What, if anything, do we do to change what is going on?, and, most important, "Is anything we actually do going to have an overall net positive or negative effect on humans?".
It's akin to arguing, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", before you've established the existence of angels and if they do in fact actually dance.
The challenge to the believers in catastrophic climate change is, without answering the fundamental questions above, there can never be any meaningful discussion about what we actually do about it.
If you are a firm believer in catastrophic climate change, you are already convinced that something (anything) needs to be done and you are challenged by the fact that you cannot take action without convincing a majority of others to agree (or, at least not actively reject) to what you want to be done.
Without a critical mass of believers, willing to do what you want, you have limited options to actual changes to society you feel need to be implemented.
You can:
A) Hold an inquisition. Make sure that people who don't believe (and have the power to resist change) are isolated and removed from any position where they might interfere with your changes.
B) Seize political power. Obtain enough political power to implement changes even in the face of resistance from the masses.
C) Seek solutions that don't require either political will or government mandate. Privately fund solutions such as commercial energy alternatives, carbon heat sinks, or alternative technologies.
However you seek to face the challenges of changing hearts and minds (as well as lifestyles) of the majority of humans on this Earth, it probably won't be solved by posting argumentative threads about how many tenths of a degree temperature difference occurred between last week and this week or how many parts per million of a particular gas is measured in Timbuktu.
Like many beliefs, the belief in catastrophic climate change is based partly on observation and partly on indoctrination. The percentage of those parts vary differently from individual to individual.
Like most beliefs, there is an important drive in believers to make sure as many people as possible believe in the exact same thing. Those who can't be convinced to believe must be marginalized as "anti the belief", a "denier" of the belief", infidel, apostate, heretic, are also frequently used. The purpose of the marginalization is to assure that the tenets of the belief cannot be challenged, as anyone who might challenge the belief is already labeled and their input is therefore invalid.
As for the belief in catastrophic climate change, it is pointless to argue the minutiae of the belief such as variations in global temperature, percentage of gasses in the atmosphere, and predictions on how these may or may not affect humans on the world. It's pointless because there is no way for a normal individual to verify or disprove claims. They must be taken as articles of faith. Another reason they are pointless is that they don't change the fundamental questions of, "What is actually going on?", "What, if anything, do we do to change what is going on?, and, most important, "Is anything we actually do going to have an overall net positive or negative effect on humans?".
It's akin to arguing, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", before you've established the existence of angels and if they do in fact actually dance.
The challenge to the believers in catastrophic climate change is, without answering the fundamental questions above, there can never be any meaningful discussion about what we actually do about it.
If you are a firm believer in catastrophic climate change, you are already convinced that something (anything) needs to be done and you are challenged by the fact that you cannot take action without convincing a majority of others to agree (or, at least not actively reject) to what you want to be done.
Without a critical mass of believers, willing to do what you want, you have limited options to actual changes to society you feel need to be implemented.
You can:
A) Hold an inquisition. Make sure that people who don't believe (and have the power to resist change) are isolated and removed from any position where they might interfere with your changes.
B) Seize political power. Obtain enough political power to implement changes even in the face of resistance from the masses.
C) Seek solutions that don't require either political will or government mandate. Privately fund solutions such as commercial energy alternatives, carbon heat sinks, or alternative technologies.
However you seek to face the challenges of changing hearts and minds (as well as lifestyles) of the majority of humans on this Earth, it probably won't be solved by posting argumentative threads about how many tenths of a degree temperature difference occurred between last week and this week or how many parts per million of a particular gas is measured in Timbuktu.
Last edited:
