Why Demand Debate Over Climate Change?
by Kenny Luna, North Babylon, NY on 11.22.07
Claiming that “We’re more worried about the intellectual climate…” a group headed by Steven Milloy is targeting school boards, parents, and teachers across the country demanding that “debate” be introduced into the academic environment about climate change.
Of course, they also believe that Al Gore is a fraud, the IPCC is a bunch of wacko scientists, and probably that even the moon is made of nothing less than the finest green cheese imaginable.
But regardless, I actually agree with them that we need to demand debate over climate change. Though not over what it is or why it’s happening, but rather a reasonable and vigorous debate over which are the best policies and strategies available to divert ourselves, our children, and our civilization away from a looming catastrophe and towards a sustainable future.
Fortunately, this lonely set of voices "demanding" non-sensical debate over the realities of climate change are being more than drowned out by a very wide and diverse group of people standing up to make a difference in a positive way.
via:: Demand Debate
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Focus Earth: November 29, 2008: Growing Up With Global Warming
- Natural Disasters: The Effects of Climate Change
- On Climate Change, Africa Votes As One Country And One Continent
- Galapagos and US Teachers Collaborate to Develop Environmental Education Programs
The Amazing Tale of a Farmer, His Locally Grown Carrots, and the NYC School System
|
Sky TV's 'Cool Cat' on Carbon Offsets
|
"Though not over what it is or why it’s happening,"
Because there is a "concensus" right?
This is why it is imposssible for reasonable people to take views like yours seriously.
Knowing what it is and why it is happening is of utmost importance, as that knowledge will govern our actions.
Saying it is not worth debating these things means you don't think there is anything left to learn, or at least anything that would change your mind on what actions need to be taken.
How do envision your idea of a debate happening? e.g. You might say: Models show that sea level is going to rise 20ft in 100 years; we need to stop all CO2 emissions now. In response I might say: I m not convinced that model is accurate. To which you would respond what? You see you can't have a real debate about what actions to take without actually debating the underlying science.
Actually, they're not a "lonely" set of voices at all. people all over the world are discussing the climate change phenomenon, which incidentally, has been occurring since the beginning of time, as implied by the term "change". Climate, like anything else, is not static.
Are you really so threatened by discussion that you label as "wackos" a bunch of parents who wish to scrutinise their kids education and make sure they're being taught properly, with proper scientific training? There were scientific errors in Al Gore's film, and anyone who applauds errors and unscientific thinking in the promotion of a cause is highly intellectually unsound and deserves scrutiny and - oh, yes, that oh-so-trendy term DISSENT!
Now, since this is clearly the kind of writer who would demand some kind of "cred" I happen to be devoted to and a keen advocate of green design, can't wait until we're all zipping about in aircars (www.aircar.com) and love to make things out of discarded objects.
I probably agree about demanding action above anything else
There's a huge difference between debate between two or more groups of well informed individuals and the deliberate clouding of an issue with inaccuracies and misleading information.
It's one thing to bring a well reasoned argument to the table, but it's entirely different to insist on 'balance' or 'both sides of the story' when one is far less rigorously scrutinized than the other. By that logic, we should be giving air time to Charles Manson, so that he can put forward the case for serial killing. Get a grip, people.
Show me the scientific basis for the claims that Global Warming is fraudulent and we'll talk. Until then, get the hell out of the way, and stop crying that you are not being listened to.
Debate is good, skepticism is good. Outright denial is a problem. Unless you feel like ignorant and misinformed opinion is equally worthy as hard science. If that's the case, maybe you need to ask yourself where your conclusions are actually your own.