A Reasoned Approach to Climate Change

Perhaps the most concerning issue in the climate change debate is that so many people refuse to accept the fact that all science – including climate science – is predicated on hard evidence.  And every theory or conclusion must be supported by observation, experimentation, and analysis.  And if a theory is contradicted by even a single piece of evidence, that theory or conclusion must either be abandoned or be subjected to further scrutiny.

However, when hard evidence is no longer a part of the equation, what we’re left with is opinion and emotion.  Opinion & emotion are fine when planning your next beach vacation, but not when addressing a matter that will affect the quality of life of every human on earth.  And the biggest canard or charade of the climate lobby is that the lobby itself doesn’t have an actual goal.  They certainly have wishes, desires, aspirations and maybe even hope, noble notions all, but what they do not have a realistic goal, allow me to explain.

~ Goals Must be SMART ~

Most of us learned in high school, and if not, then certainly during our careers that to accomplish a goal, that goal need to be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.  Yet the official statement from the UN reads  – “to substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to hold global temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.”  So, are words and phrases I highlighted specific and measurable, are they realistic much less time-bound?  Of course they’re not and none of it has a snowball’s chance in hell of being actualized.  The public will never get answers to questions about time frames or cost from an activists because the policy makers at the UN, in congress and in the White House don’t know those answers themselves!

~ Moving the Goalposts ~

Meanwhile, this recent headline from One Earth Online  – “A breakthrough climate model, the product of a two-year collaboration with 17 leading scientists, shows that we still have a window to stay below the dangerous threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius, achieving net-zero emissions before 2040.”   Wow!  What a fortuitous development.  Planet earth got a reprieve – and just in the nick of time.  But before we celebrate too much, perhaps we should ask, who are these leading scientists?  What are their credentials?  Even more importantly, has this “breakthrough climate model” been peer reviewed?  Dumb question, of course it hasn’t been peer reviewed, that’s why activists make such statements because there’s no on checking the accuracy of their statements.  But moving goalposts is a time-honored tradition in liberal circles, and along with a complicit media, the Left is again changing the terms of a debate after it’s started.  Remember, just five years ago climate expert Alexandria Ocasio Cortez told us the world will end in 12 years – well now we have a few more – whew!  That was close.

Can you imagine any taxpayer funded undertaking where its proponents are unable to tell you the project’s estimated costs or its time frame?  Neither can I.  After 9/11 could Freedom Tower have been built without a construction schedule, a timeline, and an estimated cost.  Even  individuals doing research who may not work within a specific time frame and don’t know how long it will take or how much it will cost to find a cure for cancer, have a clearly defined goal – find a cure for cancer!

~ They Brook No Other Opinions ~

Climate activists hold to their positions as matters of faith, which is why apolclyptists never use hard evidence.  Instead, they resort to bumper-sticker slogans and videos of Greta Thunberg to pique emotions.   So, allow me to ask rhetorically, if a climate activist’s child were seriously ill and two world renown medical professionals had opposing views regarding treatment, do you think they would choose one over the other without thorough investigation and research?  I don’t think so either.

How many times in life have we received different opinions on matters important to us?  The endodontist says implants, the orthodontist recommends dentures; – a podiatrist wants you to think about a fusing the joint, while the orthopedic surgeon’s PA suggests steroid injections – one builder uses wood decking but his competitor advocates for composite.  The common denominator is each of these situations is that they are all situations with limited ramifications – not decisions meant to change the very structure of society.

~ What’s Their Rationale? ~

This entire argument would become a joke if it wasn’t adversely affecting our lives.  Why does China continue to build hundreds of coal-fired power plants around the world without a whimper from Washington or the UN?  Do our supposedly intelligent leaders not see the disconnect? That’s a rhetorical question because of course they see the disconnect, they just don’t care, begging the question – Why?  I cannot answer that question and to me, that’s the real tragedy of the matter.  I simply don’t understand why the Left is hell-bent on moving at warp speed to re-make not just ours, but the world’s economy – except of course for those nations that choose not to participate in the wholesale dismantling of their economies, nations as China and India.  The blatant dishonesty of the entire climate change debate is the surest guarantor that this matter will not end well for society as a whole.

~ A Magic Wand ~

If I had a magic wand, I would wave it so the leadership at the UN and in the Washington would expend the necessary time and energy to improve their understanding of the matter.  Then, provide the public and the policy makers with a fundamental education on both the certainties and uncertainties of the climate argument, establish points of agreement that identify where research is most needed, and then move forward with it.  But even more importantly, they would place science rather than politics front and center regarding climate policy.

Just call me Pollyanna…