The Four Objections: Four Quandries Presented by the Climate Change Issue

The Four Objections: Four Quandaries Presented by the Climate Change Issue

First off, let me say that this is not all my own work. Many people have pointed to similar things as I will list here (possibly even listed them as a group), so what I am really doing is explaining these Objections as I see them and in my own words. So without further ado, let me begin:

Number One: What is the 'Change' in 'Climate Change'?

More specifically, what will change, where, how much and when will it change? If this is not clearly known, then why on Earth would anyone be afraid? I understand when an assertion is proposed that the Earth is warming. I understand an assertion claiming that the oceans are rising. But how warm will it get? How high will the ocean levels rise? And much more importantly, what will that do to the actual climate?

Humans do best in warm areas and coastal areas. Is a warmer planet something to fear? How warm would it need to become for it to become uninhabitable to humans? How high would the oceans have to rise --and how swiftly-- to be a threat to humans? And most importantly, is either of those two things supported climate models that are backed by accurate predictions?

Is it more storms that we are supposed to be worried about, or desertification, or more snow? Have any of those things been predicted? I recall hearing repeatedly when major storms and hurricanes hit, that such things 'could be' a result of Climate Change, but no one would offer anything to prove it. It was always, 'Well, this might be....'. Sorry, 'might be' isn't going to scare me. Because 'might be' implies 'might not be' and even more so, there is the possibility that --rather than something fearful-- something wonderful could happen.

What if, as the Earth warmed, weather patterns shifted and provided reliable rain to extremely arid regions? What if millions of square miles in northeastern Asia became very nice for humans to live in? What if? If there is an open question as to what specifics something like Climate Change will bring, then aren't the benefits just as likely as the detriments?

If I am supposed to be concerned about Climate Change, then I need to know exactly what the expected consequences are and exactly why those are to be feared. Otherwise, I will trust in human ingenuity and adaptability and not worry about a changing future. Who ever said the future is--or is supposed to be-- predictable?




Number Two: Where is the scientific method behind Climate Change?

Science exists for just one reason: to allow humans to reliably predict the future. Without the ability to predict the future more accurately than other means of functioning in the world, science is useless. Utterly useless. I can go into much deeper detail on this, but I trust that (for the purposes of this essay) the reader understands this point.

SO how is Climate Change doing with the predictions? Where are the predictions that came true?This has been a very sore spot with Climate Change proponents, and I can see why, with a failure to make good predictions comes a failure of the Climate Change model itself. That is how real science works. Once you are able to make predictions you are in a position to advance the hypothesis into becoming a full theory. Without that, you must keep going back around to re-examine the hypothesis. The process becomes stuck in a tedious loop. People hate tedium. They want to 'just get on with it. Those who don't understand the importance of this part of the process will laughably insist that the 'science is settled' ad move forward--as if the models were working, when they plainly are not.

So that is the second objection. Climate Change is stuck in the development process as it keeps failing to make accurate predictions and thus keeps failing to advance according the the scientific method.





Number Three: "Do as I say, not as I do" said Al Gore nervously.

This third objection is less about the scientific process and more about the broader perspective of how Climate Change is viewed by the public-- who are the presumed audience of the Climate Change presentation. When you have Al Gore (and many, many others, mind you) telling you that CO2 driven Climate Change is a threat to everyone on Earth and then he jets around the world (released an inordinate amount of CO2) and he returns to his home (which uses many times the average amount of electricity from a coal-fired power-plant grid), it looks a bit strange. How can he think releasing CO2 is a threat when he goes about doing it (much more than an average person does) with nary a care? Or look at all the Hollywood celebrities; how can Leonardo DiCaprio seriously be telling people to cut their carbon emissions when he consumes so very much fossil-fuel energy? How can any of them? At least they could take their vast fortunes and make their homes energy sufficient. But how many of them do? I think it is fair to say that any of those who do not take drastic measures to limit the amount of carbon that they are putting into the air become complete hypocrites when they lecture anyone else to do so.

At least when 'the little people' think that putting CO2 into the atmosphere, they can plausibly use the 'hardship' excuse for why they don't stop using fossil fuels (we will becoming back to that excuse though). But what excuse have the wealthy? Basically, they are acting as if they don't really believe that Climate Change is a threat. And I think it is fair to conclude that they don't.

BUT, when the leaders of a movement don't believe in the ideas of the movement, doesn't that undermine the whole thing? Think of how much trouble has been caused by Catholic leadership not acting as if the respected the lives destroyed by the actions of a few of their priests? Even if one would argue that the higher idea of God having a church on Earth were to be defended, there is no denying that it hurt the Catholic church in trying to get out the message and in trying to do good work--because people felt betrayed. Shouldn't people now feel betrayed by the actions of the leadership of the Climate Change movement?






Number Four (aka 'The Dozy'): So, what are you gonna do?

Ok, if you found the other Three Objections able to be bypassed (I'd like to know how, btw) this is where you stop. Regardless of the science, the public relations and the threat of Climate Change, there is one inescapable truth: There is nothing you can do.

Hold on. Let me clarify this.

There is no way (no matter the reason and evidence) that you will ever persuade a majority of the world's people to support whatever action you think should be taken. There is no way that you will get half the people of the world to even understand what the threat of Climate Change *is* to them (intelligence distribution being what it is). We can't even get enough people to agree to stamp out human trafficking. We can get people to just 'not treat others in the way they wouldn't want to be treated' (an idea so simple a child can understand it). There is ZERO chance of ever getting a mandate from the people of the world to 'stop Climate Change' (even if that were both possible and desirable).

So then what? Take action in the absence of a mandate? Take action against a mandate to do nothing? What percentage do you think is required to justify taking action? What about preventing other people from putting more carbon into the atmosphere? What if a country that owns oil and coal decides to make power plants to burn them and tells everyone else to 'mind their own business'? Will you use force to stop them? Really? What if you have a plan to dump Sulfur Dioxide (or whatever) into the atmosphere to remove the carbon, and they say 'no'? Will you use force? Will they?

Once you start initiating force on other people, you lose whatever moral 'high ground' you thought you had. ESPECIALLY if you are not 100% certain that it is the only action that could be taken and that it must be taken.

But would even such things be enough? Wouldn't you have to stop using all fossil fuels on an industrial scale? As far as I know, that is the only known 'solution'. And what would that solution do? It would destroy the world's economies and condemn billions of people to abject poverty. And would even the Climate Change believers allow themselves to be subjected to such poverty? I think we already know. They are not doing it when it is not mandatory, why would we think they will co-operate, even if it were mandatory? They won't.

And that hasn't even addressed the issue of the people who might conclude that Climate Change will be good for humans. What would you do with them? More violence?

No, no matter how the Climate Change 'debate' progresses, in the end it comes to this. There is just no way to 'solve' it other than going around the rest of the people of the world, and using force (maybe quite a bit of force) against some of them. Will you create an apocalypse to prevent one?