reason and squalor

hey there folks. So, just thought I would get this out of the way…I think that human-centered “global warming” is complete bullshit.

Yep.

Originally, when I first started hearing about all of this global warming stuff, I thought it sounded pretty right on the money. Mostly because I’d noticed how weird the weather seemed to be getting of late, and I thought that would explain it. I didn’t know there was any real skepticism about it at all (which was kind of silly, but I was a lot younger then and didn’t really know even the basics of how science works). My first introduction to global warming skepticism came when I was in grade 10 or 11, from my science teacher. She taught us about the theory of global warming (greenhouse gasses and all of that), but she added on to the end of it that she wasn’t convinced about the whole thing and that way more data was needed before she would be. Now that was a long time ago, and since it’s hard in general to be a skeptic about anything that the majority of people believe in, I let it go and sided with that very majority, until about a year or two ago. For whatever reason, I started to hear more and more about these skeptics of GW, of Al Gore’s movie, and the now infamous “hockey stick” graph. And it confused the heck out of me. It is VERY confusing, especially for someone with absolutely no science background, to understand what is going on in the science world, let alone be able to forge your own decisions about controversial matters like this. I also noticed that GW had become a highly politicized matter, and that’s when I got really worried. I knew then that there would be virtually no way of trusting what I hear from the media, and even from the scientists themselves. That lack of trust was cemented with the email leak of a few weeks ago, of course, although by that time I wasn’t surprised at all over what I read in them. But I have to say, more than anything, what cements my agnosticism about the whole GW issue (both human and non-human generated) is how many times I have heard the phrase “the scientists are in consensus”, or anything along those lines. Again and again, every single time I bring it up, ever so carefully, with people who I know wholeheartedly agree with the majority on this, I hear this phrase. It is to the point where I can read on Monday a paper or an article by or about a scientist or any perfectly sane person who challenges the theory, and by Friday I am struggling to remember that it exists after an onslaught of articles, papers, and heartfelt conversations with people  who just KNOW that it doesn’t, and that every single scientist with any credibility whatsoever, over the entire world, agrees on every major detail of the theory.

I don’t like to bring it up with people, and when the topic comes up, I rarely say anything, let alone speak my mind about what I really think. And this is ME I’m talking about here. I practically LIVE on debate, and I certainly enjoy pushing people’s buttons and letting them know if I disagree with them. I will easily slip into a conversation about abortion, government, money, or religion, and tell anyone who’s asked exactly what my opinion on the matter at hand is. I despise people who have no opinions on issues that effect their daily lives. That’s why I can’t stand it when people say they’re “agnostic” as far as religion goes. When people don’t have strong opinions about things, they aren’t thinking about them. And when they’re not forming opinions, they can’t fully partake in our democratic system. We can’t build on one another’s knowledge if we can’t all express how we have interpreted the available information.

20-30 years ago, everyone was convinced that the world was getting much, much colder. That if we didn’t do something about it, we would be heading into an ice age that would certainly kill us all. The difference there is that that theory didn’t have the intense, and yes, ideological backing that global warming has today. It certainly didn’t have the multi-billion dollar industry behind it. Look…I would never deny that climate change occurs. Of course it does…in a very real way, that’s what climate IS. And if a whole lot of people have a whole lot of very good reasons to think that the world’s temperature is rising at a dangerous rate, and we need to do something about it, then we should definitely engage with these people, try to repeat their experiments to confirm their data, and generally listen to them when they make their case. When the whole of the human race is on the line, there aren’t too many scenarios we shouldn’t do this for. But when average people and scientists alike attempt to stifle debate, or even say there shouldn’t be a debate at all, I have a serious problem. When people use the term “scientific consensus”, and call the people who dare question any facet of their belief “crazy”, “deniers”, or any other heavily loaded terms, you should watch out. Even if they are right, about everything, there is absolutely no reason to devolve into this kind of talk. If your theory is strong enough, stands up to unbiased, rigorous testing, and you are open about your methods and procedure, there is absolutely no reason for emotionally-charged rhetoric and politically charged attempted cover-ups of anything. At least this is what I have always thought about science, and why I put so much store in it. It’s what I tell religious people who challenge scientific theories like that of evolution. It is the very essence of why science is NOT religion, and vice versa. If we loose that, if we overly politicize science to such a degree that scientists will change or hide results, methods, or procedure, we’ve lost everything, and we will no longer be able to learn anything. So you can call me crazy all you want, claim that I’m the product of capitalist greed, or that I’ve been brainwashed by Big Oil or Stephen Harper (I hear he hates kittens, too), but it doesn’t matter – until people stop saying these things about the challenges to their theory, or the people who propose them, no matter how big or small, I’ll know I can’t trust a damn thing they say.

EDIT: after reading this post over, I realized that I may have said one thing and actually meant another. I don’t think I AM a global warming skeptic, at all. The point is that I just bloody well don’t know, and I’m not too sure that anyone else knows either. Just when I think I do, some other point is made to make me swing to the other side. I’m just generally confused. So, despite myself, I have to be a global warming agnostic. So, technically, I don’t think global warming is bullshit. I’m just really not sure of any of it. What I AM sure of, is that being forced into agnosticism because I can’t trust anybody is one of the most annoying things ever. The over politicization of this whole issue is what really angers me, and is the reason that I can’t put my weight behind global warming. And I think that the best illustration of this point is the whole “scientific consensus” thing. Every time anyone who is a global warming believer uses this term or suggests it in any way, I’m forced, BY THEM, not to believe a thing they say, due to the blatant over politicization of what they’re saying. It doesn’t help how heated up these same people get about it too, especially to anyone daring to question anything they claim. I’m not saying they’re wrong, I’m saying even if they’re right, it doesn’t mean a damn thing to me because I can’t trust them. And I don’t know what to do about that.

One Response to “woo/hegemony”