Answering man made climate change denial

Posted: September 10, 2017 in Uncategorized

We all have friends who trot out the right-wing meme “OK the climate is changing but who can say that climate change is man made? Sure there is scientific consensus, but that’s not proof”.

With one, I tried an explanation, expressed politely. My next step when courtesy fails is always “get out of the way you fucking idiot, the rest of us will try and solve this”. But I thought I’d try courtesy first. It ran thusly:

“Michael, with all due respect, it’s not about scientific consensus versus scientific proof. 

Science is merely a process by which one observes natural events and then seeks to discover the causality behind them. A theory is then advanced to try and satisfy all the enquiries. This is true of all science – not just weather science but geology, ocean studies, ice studies, biology, and so forth. 

Then the theory is tested against predictions – if this is happening, then this should happen next.

That climate change is man made is argued because the FASTEST EVER rise in global temperatures coincides exactly with the beginning of the industrial era. QED it’s the industrialisation of the planet that is causing it. 

If this is happening, then it is predictable that more extreme weather events will happen, more often. Worse snow, longer droughts, more intense rainfall, worse (and more common) hurricanes.

It is also predictable that the oceans will become more acid, and species will become extinct, threatening the food chain.

In other words, a “perfect storm” for humanity, if you’ll pardon the pun.

Which is exactly what is happening, and will continue to happen. That’s why there is scientific consensus. The theory works when examined by all branches of science.”
The other argument that one tries is “Well look at it this way: if the climate change science is real it is very likely disastrous for humanity. If there’s only 1% chance the scientists are right isn’t the prudent thing to address the trend, and see what happens next?”

Then some waffle about economic growth is trotted out. Which is when I say “No jobs on a dead planet” which I once saw scrawled on a freeway bridge and noted. Then I get mildly abusive and log off.

  1. Paul Brixey says:

    Already discussed on the national news over the past couple of days and the idea that climate change has anything to do with the hurricanes was poo pooed.


    • Stephen Yolland says:

      Unfortunately people don’t understand what is happening, especially on “the national news”. The level of ignorance in the BBC especially is terrifying.


  2. Woody says:

    I have waited with bated breath for someone to explain the scientific process, simple to us, but vague to so many others. It’s a process of finding the truth, what works and how often under what conditions it seems to work.
    It’s not a shadowy government programme based entirely in a high-rise office full of uncaring suits, no, it’s a method and one that has paid with efficiency and safety all over our homes and work-sites and everywhere else in our physical world.

    Thanks Yolly, there are some things that really need saying and this is one of them.

    All the best,


  3. Pat says:

    Yolly for some reason I didn’t get this article (and others) – so I tried to re-register but your computer told me I was already on the mailing list, but I haven’t heard from you in months! Maybe there’s an electronic black hole somewhere that is eating some of the emails sent to me – I must talk to my ISP after Christmas.

    Anyway I hope you and all your readers have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year…


What do YOU think? That's what matters. Please comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s