Spring Break
Confessions of a Global-warming Skeptic
Issue date: 4/8/08 Section: Commentary
Recently after an on-campus political event I was chatting with a
fellow participant. When he learned that I was skeptical of global
warming claims he scoffed, declared "The debate is over.", and walked away with zero curiosity about why I might feel that way.
The debate is not over, at least for me.
Please allow me more time to decide, without branding me a heretic or a denier. The arguments on both sides are so convincing that whenever I listen to one side alone I find myself agreeing with that side. Since currently the "alarmed" side of the debate seems to be leading, let me support the underdog for the moment and bias my reasons for indecision toward the "not alarmed" side. These are merely my personal, unscientific intuitions, but see if you find yourself nodding in agreement with any of them.
To me the global warming debate merits caution because...
1. The debate feels more fanatical than other debates, say, about health care or the war in Iraq. I sense some unconscious emotional forces at work, including an in-group mentality. Being on the wrong side of this debate can affect your social relationships, as it did in the incident above.
2. There are likely hidden agendas. What was once a scientific debate has migrated into the political realm, where stakes are high in research funding, corporate profits, political careers, and possibly even geopolitical strategy. (Do powerful nations unfairly handicap underdeveloped nations by holding them to higher environmental standards than they themselves upheld?) Disinformation could be lurking anywhere.
3. There is a Luddite contingent that unconsciously *enjoys* carbon dioxide being considered a deadly substance because that slows industrialization. The calls to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which warm the earth, far outnumber the calls to *increase* aerosol emissions, which cool the earth. Why?
4. Al Gore will not debate challengers. If he is passionate about the issue and his reasoning is sound, why wouldn't he relish the
fellow participant. When he learned that I was skeptical of global
warming claims he scoffed, declared "The debate is over.", and walked away with zero curiosity about why I might feel that way.
The debate is not over, at least for me.
Please allow me more time to decide, without branding me a heretic or a denier. The arguments on both sides are so convincing that whenever I listen to one side alone I find myself agreeing with that side. Since currently the "alarmed" side of the debate seems to be leading, let me support the underdog for the moment and bias my reasons for indecision toward the "not alarmed" side. These are merely my personal, unscientific intuitions, but see if you find yourself nodding in agreement with any of them.
To me the global warming debate merits caution because...
1. The debate feels more fanatical than other debates, say, about health care or the war in Iraq. I sense some unconscious emotional forces at work, including an in-group mentality. Being on the wrong side of this debate can affect your social relationships, as it did in the incident above.
2. There are likely hidden agendas. What was once a scientific debate has migrated into the political realm, where stakes are high in research funding, corporate profits, political careers, and possibly even geopolitical strategy. (Do powerful nations unfairly handicap underdeveloped nations by holding them to higher environmental standards than they themselves upheld?) Disinformation could be lurking anywhere.
3. There is a Luddite contingent that unconsciously *enjoys* carbon dioxide being considered a deadly substance because that slows industrialization. The calls to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which warm the earth, far outnumber the calls to *increase* aerosol emissions, which cool the earth. Why?
4. Al Gore will not debate challengers. If he is passionate about the issue and his reasoning is sound, why wouldn't he relish the
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 22
Matt
posted 4/08/08 @ 10:21 AM EST
WWF was behind Earth Hour, it's Eugenics founded. They advocate depopulation through environmentalism.
Environmentalism has been hijacked by socialists and depopulationists. (Continued…)
John Costello
posted 4/08/08 @ 11:41 AM EST
My perspective is from someone trained in archaeology.
The ''hockey stick' denies the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (ca 700 AD-1315 AD) when temperatures ranged from 0. (Continued…)
Will S.
W.S.
posted 4/09/08 @ 10:26 AM EST
You know, even if global warming was real, and not just another political maneuver to frighten the populace into giving up more tax dollars, I still couldn't care less. (Continued…)
mike conley
posted 4/11/08 @ 2:40 AM EST
Nice article, Jeff. A (sort of) debate website on global warming exists. Go to: www.climatedebatedaily.com
Mike Conley
Los Angeles
Is
posted 4/11/08 @ 11:04 AM EST
How do you explain the simultaneous heating of the lower atmosphere yet the cooling of the stratosphere?
G Gaskell
posted 4/24/08 @ 4:34 PM EST
The likes of IS are the problem. I can just imagine IS 70 years ago telling Will.S. to shut up as his knowledge of anthropololgy is insufficient to equip him to understand the fundemental superiority of the "Master Race". (Continued…)
Allan
posted 4/29/08 @ 8:17 AM EST
Is asks:
How do you explain the simultaneous heating of the lower atmosphere yet the cooling of the stratosphere?
Is, do you ever have an original thought? Every single word you post is exactly the politically correct answer right off the moveon. (Continued…)
David Icke
posted 4/30/08 @ 5:49 PM EST
Wow. I'm very impressed to see Matt's response.
Take a hint from him people. He's done some homework and doesn't just watch TV and read Time Mag.
Global Warming is completely false, just like terrorism. (Continued…)
Allan
posted 5/02/08 @ 8:44 AM EST
I've never been to moveon.org website but I think I will go as it seems like some smart folks over there. Thanks.
Still wondering, how do you explain the heating of the lower atmosphere but the cooling of the stratosphere if, as enhanced greenhouse effect deniers have oft pointed out, increased solar output is the culprit. (Continued…)
UNHalum
posted 5/02/08 @ 9:50 AM EST
I have been reading through these comments without responding but am disappointed and annoyed at what I see. Is it possible for two reasonable people to disagree without one of them being a Nazi and the other an idiot? Something tells me that IS and Allan et. (Continued…)
Post a Comment