Why the Huge Pushback on Climate Change Mitigation?
Have you ever wondered why there is such horrific backlash against the vast majority of climate scientists who are warning us that global warming is in the process of ruining our planet? Where did all these climate deniers comes from, and what’s their motive?
Well, yes, you could say that it’s the oil industry, and their desperate fight to retain power in an era whose technologies and moral sensibilities are driving them into obsolescence. We’re now aware of internal corporate communiques that go back more than 40 years, via which decisions were made to bury the science, and build massive disinformation campaigns to confuse the public and delay any actions that would have naturally been taken to turn things around before it’s too late.
Here’s what some people say: a real examination of the causes of climate change ultimately leads to questioning the validity of free market capitalism itself, and that is something we really don’t want. What are the consequences of limitless growth on a a limited planet? What happens when the wealthiest 0.1% take full control of government, and create policies that favor only them?
But where does one wind up when we start calling into question the legitimacy of capitalism?
I’m reminded of a line from St. Augustine’s “Confessions,” written some 1600 years ago, that caused me to laugh out loud when I came across it. Paraphrasing: “What was God doing before He created the heavens and the Earth? Some say He was building hells for people who think about things too much, but I do not accept that….”
Here is something that will most definitely make you think, and, I believe, in very worthwhile directions:
Craig,
If you ask a question, then answer it yourself, you have the satisfaction of living in completely closed bubble.
The Oil Industry has no interest, and is certainly not in any “desperate fight to retain power in an era who technologies and moral sensibilities are driving them into obsolescence”. The Oil Industry has more than sufficient eager customers, including those like yourself with moral sensibilities who eagerly use their products.
In a way, you have answered your own question.
You, like many of the more extreme Green-left, can’t seem to accept the general public just doesn’t believe you, trust you, or is even prepared to listen to the alarmist claims and hype any longer.
The public doesn’t distrust the science as such, what they don’t trust or believe is all the all the hype from pundits with wildly distorted interpretation of the science. The public are not the fools you take them be, it takes time, but the public is adept at detecting hypocrisy. self interest and hidden agenda.
Even the term “climate denier” , is resented as a bullying term of derision designed to denigrate and silence opposition or dissent. For while the public was cowed into silence by a combination of activists, politicians, eager protestors, crusading ‘scientists’ the left media. and a huge leftist-green propaganda machine fueled largely by the taxpayer.
Because the Green movement was originally based on some alarming and authentic science, the public became genuinely concerned. Green Technology promised much and green advocates promised even more.
The general public began to become suspicious when green advocacy became identical with that of the old left.
With the discrediting of “peak oil” and as more and more “scientific ” alarmist claims failed to eventuate, the public grew weary of all the hyperbole, and simply switched off.
The process was accelerated by the more extreme green-left advocates who ratcheted up the claims demanding wildly impractical and dangerous “revolution”, the abolition of capitalism, collectivism, socialism etc.
In doing so they destroyed the credibility of their own crusade. The public defended itself against this barrage by silently ignoring the ranting advocates and deserting them, and their political colleagues, at the voting booths.
Worse, the ranting politicized advocates made it very difficult for moderate green (clean(er) tech) activists ( like myself) to continue advancing environmentally friendly technology.
Craig, the real answer to your question, is look at yourself, and you associates behavior !
Calling dissenters “Climate deniers” ( what does that even mean ? I mean are there people who deny the planet has a climate?) to calling others “trolls” or “morons” , must inevitably alienate and weary the silent majority.
I believe the main factor in the demise of green credibility, is how advocates like yourself appear as blatant hypocrites. Why do I say such a slur ? I don’t use the term lightly, and certainly not without justification.
I assure you I don’t level that charge simply to be malicious, and I wish it couldn’t be sustained, but unfortunately I believe you just don’t see how divorced from credibility since 2016 you have become.
Here’s an example: You post an opinion advocating speaking out ‘moral’ issues. In previous post you have praised those who loudly criticize the actions and opinions of the present administration on moral grounds.
So far, the vast majority of the public are in agreement.
But, here’s where you, and your fellow travelers lose credibility. After taking the high moral ground against your opponents, you refuse to explain or answer charges as to why the same standards don’t apply to yourself or those you support !
The arrogant reply,” I can’t be bothered wasting my time on… (choose your own epithet) I’m far too superior !” , doesn’t add to your credibility. Indeed it just sounds like a school yard loser.
The result is inevitable. Like all fringe movements, you slowly become just a small coterie sitting round a cracker barrel agreeing with each other, impotent and irrelevant.
But it needn’t be that way ! Okay, so an exciting anti-capitalist “revolution” won’t occur, (you know that each time you fill up at a gas station), but the challenge of practical environmental and clean(er) technology is racing ahead.
It doesn’t really matter whether it’s EV’s, Wind Power, Clean(er) Coal, Solar, Advanced Nuclear, Super refined Natural Gas, cleaner industrial machinery, eliminating ruminant emissions, or a thousand other advances, they all help mitigate environmental damage in practical ways that help restore the general public’s faith in supporting environmental progress without all the negative political babble.
C’mon, a new dawn awakes, won’t you lend a hand ?
Craig,
Whoops, just as I predicted, U.S.District Court Judge William Alsup threw out lawsuits bought by the cities of San Francisco and neighboring Oakland accusing Chevron, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, BP and Royal Dutch Shell of long knowing that fossil fuels posed serious risks to the environment but still promoting them as environmentally responsible and ought to be held liable for the Earth’s changing environment..
Ouite rightly Judge Alsup ruled is was the purview of Congress, the President and the electorate to address the contribution of fossil fuels to global warming. Judge Alsup also observed “the world has also benefited significantly from oil and other fossil fuel, questions of how to balance the “worldwide positives of the energy” against its role in global warming “demand the expertise of our environmental agencies, our diplomats, our Executive, and at least the Senate. The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a District Judge or jury in a public nuisance case,” .
Being the fifth ruling along these lines in different jurisdictions, and U.S. District Judge John F. Keenan appears ready to throw out the last of the remaining sit being brought by the City of New York.
Te case being run by the NY State attorney-General against Exxon seems to have fallen into disarray after losing other state allies. Hopefully this signals the end of these frivolous lawsuits.
Now for some good news ! Despite a real resurgence in the US economy,US has actually reduced emissions since 2015, while the signatories to the Paris Agreement have all recorded steady increases !
Craig,
Oh dear, blow after blow is occurring the credibility and egos of those “oh so Confident ” climate alarmist and advocates.
In a lead article the Wall Street Journal asked, ” Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?” [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/22/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up/]
The short answer, is not all that well !
The full article is worth reading by those with open minds. I include the following excerpt from climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels and meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue:
“Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16.
Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago…”
“Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.”
The article is long, detailed and fascinating, the authors cite well referenced material to explode popular myths.
Well worth reading !
Even more interesting is the substantial number of contributors to the comments section, which includes a wide spectrum of opinion.
Dear oh dear MP I forecast this day of enlightenment for Craig would most deservedly come around as was inevitable and thoroughly deserved of course, but I am disappointed that Craig seems to have exited the building after you delivered the coup de grace, not with a bang but a whimper.
But could this merely be an elaborate plot and the mighty “Two Bills” (McKibben and Nye) will clone a replacement and we can all “ring a ring a rosie” again for a few more years until “we all fall down”?
Heaven forbid.
Lawrence Coomber