Climate change needs an ATM to stop the debate
Part of my weekly rituals is to watch The McLaughlin Group (TMG) on PBS. It makes picking up women way easier. Just show a lady a photo of Pat Buchanan and she instantly wants to get naked. I should get to the point.
This week on the show, they had a lengthy segment on climate change. The irony here is the two conservatives and the two liberals all agree that they BELIEVE in climate change. However the conservatives want to give ten thousand reasons as to why we shouldn’t do anything yet, like a carbon tax or pushing along green technology like we did computers and the Internet. We (the American people) made the Internet, computers, the railroads, post offices, parks, libraries, schools and so on.
Why are we paralyzed in making a new, green technology world? Yes, we can, right?
This is the problem with democracy – everyone has to have an opinion, including stupid ones.
As I continued to watch TMG, I became annoyed. One of the biggest problems within democracy is the nonstop and unrelenting debate about obvious problems. Within democracy, changes are few and very slow to implement. The way the right-wing is framing the debate on climate change is not only intellectually dishonest – it’s winning. Oh I believe in climate change, but the science is bad.
Back on Planet Reality, there is no debate amongst the science community as to the definition, scope, relevance, and cataclysmic consequences of climate change. An estimated 97 percent of climate change scientists who all agree climate change exists and will irreversibly destroy our planet – there is no debate amongst them. I just Googled it with a respectable new search argument. Do yourself a favor, Google “97 percent of climate change” and scroll down the list of hits you get. Watch the mouth-breathers come out of the woodwork.
Half of the websites have skeptics about the 97 percent. Other websites are like “well, they might agree on climate change but….” It’s amazing so many websites exist to rebuke science. Even better, you may agree with certain aspects of science like electricity and deny evolution as a theory or how old the Earth actually is. That is precisely what made the Bill Nye v Ken Ham debate so boring and dishonest. Ken Ham believes in science that turns on an iPhone and yet throws away evolution.
So let me get this straight, we can believe in an Apple computer with the science behind that industry and yet climate change, maybe we believe it, but there is no science that backs it up. Evolution is even ten times worse – if you don’t believe in it, you just throw the facts and theories right out the window.
Allow me to be a bit cynical about why the right wing fights both evolution and climate change so hard with a fierce skepticism. The right wing likes science that backs up fracking, drilling, computers, combustion engines, airplanes and the like. Why?