Climate Change Polarization

Climate change is a polarizing
subject, and THAT could be a bigger problem than climate change itself.
The conflict-driven news media have successfully framed the
debate as a one or the other proposition. You either believe
in catastrophic man-caused global warming or you are a climate
change denier. That’s a load of bull squirt and the people
promoting this ridiculous Us vs. Them dichotomy are dangerously
dividing the country. There are a lot of different, rational
positions people can hold on the issue. And most of them do not
fit neatly into the false narrative of believing in catastrophe or
being a so-called denier. By the way, can we please stop
tolerating the use of this term “denier”? The obvious Holocaust
reference is disgusting, and no rational person is disputing that
the climate naturally changes over long time spans. Here are the
relevant questions when it comes to assessing your climate change pos-
ition: Are humans having an impact? If so, is that impact a problem?
Are we confident about climate data and model predictions? Would
policy changes make a difference? And, could those policy changes
cause more and worse problems? Based on my many years of study and
analysis I believe man’s activities are probably having some impact, but
our activity is not the driving force behind observed climate changes.
Climate models are unreliable and have consistently predicted more
warming than we have observed. Policy changes would not help and
in fact would cause much bigger problems by denying people energy,
making everything more expensive, increasing unemployment, inhibiting
innovation while also damaging the environment. That’s an educated,
nuanced opinion based on a lot of research. But that doesn’t fit the
priorities of the news media, politicians and activist groups
that have a strong, vested interest in a two-sided brawl. Here’s a handy
graph put together by climatologist Roy Spencer. The graph shows how
much warming people believe may occur if atmospheric carbon dioxide
is doubled. Some people think it’s going to get a little cooler and
others think average temperatures will get warmer, on the extreme end,
by as much as six degrees Celsius. Interestingly, there is some overlap
in the middle and the tops of the bell curves are about 2.5˚ apart.
That’s a sizable difference, but not radically different and
completely separate as the debate has been framed in the press. This
is big stuff because the loudest voices are telling us we need
to spend countless trillions of dollars right now to prevent
an imminent catastrophe. These loud voices have a strong
financial and ideological stake in scaring the life out of you.
To be fair, there are also voices that have a strong financial and
ideological stake in telling you it’s not that big of a deal and throw-
ing away trillions of your dollars is a crime against humanity. The
important take away here is that there are many more than just
two positions in this debate. Let’s all recognize that the news
media’s drive for conflict and politicians scaremongering for
votes aren’t serving our interests. They are serving their own and
splitting us apart in the process. For the Clear Energy Alliance,
I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

Comments 7

  • Politicians now promise us they can deliver politically correct weather all year round. To counter this brainwashing, just look at the historic weather record to discover that Earth has never had better weather than we have today. If our politicians cannot control crime and budget deficits, how are they ever going to control the weather?

  • I 1,000,000% agree with the video

  • You do know all Holocaust skeptics are called deniers though. Questions the number of Jews killed and you are instantly called an Anti-Semitic.

  • "To be fair, there are also voices that have a strong financial and ideological stake in telling you it's not that big of a deal and throwing away billions of dollars is a crime against humanity…"

    Somehow, I suspect that these interests are much more influential than those on the other side of the argument. Forgive me if I tend to be more concerned with lobbyists in DC paid by companies directly benefiting from the sale of low-sustainability fuels than with media and activists pushing people towards accepting that processes that have been scientifically proven to be happening right now and indeed happening and happening quickly enough to impact the climate of the globe as a whole.

  • Clear Energy Alliance does not disclose its funders, though previous pro-fossil fuel documentary was apparently implied to have industry funding. The view on the science here is skewed because there is a clear preference for fossil fuels and apparently never acknowledging the substantial atmospheric/climate side effects that the come from the waste products of burning those fuels. This video has no valid viewpoint.

    This isn't a case of agreeing to disagree here. There is either accepting evidence or not. This is a case of fighting for basic human rights for young people to inherit the same atmospheric conditions and to put a stop to intruding on their share of the atmosphere with GHG waste products.

  • Another stupid fucking channel

  • Yet another video repeating the well known idea that there is two views in this matter. There is not. Unless one include the abundant misinformation from the climate change deniers that for some part is funded by fossil fuel companies or have political agendas or as this video tells think the message is more interesting if there is a conflict or debate. From a scientific perspective there is not two sides. The science has long been settled and it is easy find evidence for that. E.g. or
    Regarding the "denier" "skeptical" distinction have a look at this funny and well documented video. It deserves to be watched in its entirety but the "denier" issue is specially addressed at 16:40:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *