By: Shawn Alli
Posted: April 18, 2017 (on http://www.shawnalli.com/)
*Disclosure: I am a climate denier, albeit a more rational one.
*Disclosure: I am NOT funded by any oil, natural gas or coal corporations. I am NOT funded by any private interest groups (NGOs, foundations or political entities).
We begin with the destruction of Hurricane Sandy and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as the savior but denying man-made climate change. NYT journalist Mark Bittman says:
But is climate change really an esoteric question [as Christie says]? Or is Christie dangerously leaving his state vulnerable to the next Sandy?
Let's create a hypothetical scenario. Let's say that the US government and states agree on banning traditional energy extraction and pricing carbon. They do this for 5 years. In the 5th year a hurricane causes immense destruction. What will Bittman and climate change believers say?
Some will say that it takes hundreds of years to reverse the carbon apocalypse. Nice, but unfalsifiable. Others will say that it would have been much worse if we were still extracting traditional energy. Again, that's unfalsifiable as well. And others will just blame the Russians because it's popular again to blame them for everything bad that happens in the world.
It's ironic. Just as Christians believe that their god can do no harm, they label the devil as the one that causes all of the problems. Liberals believe that the people are unwitting accomplices of the Russian government in electing Trump. Just as the Christian god bears no responsibility, in the eyes of liberals, the people bear no responsibility either. An enemy always shows up to conveniently take the blame. Hilarious.
We then move to the inauguration of Washington Governor Jay Inslee who accepts man-made climate change. The Republicans sitting down are not amused. Actress and model Olivia Munn interviews Inslee. She says:
But doing something about global warming will create thousands of jobs and clean energy.
Ah yes, the economic argument for climate change. We'll create thousands of jobs. Yes, that's a better selling point than most arguments. But clean energy advocates specialize in spending taxpayer dollars with no significant effect in climate, while raising the cost of electricity and the cost of living.
Inslee talks about his difficult times on the climate change committee with Republicans. Inslee clearly doesn't understand ideological bubbles. Interestingly enough, he says that:
Science is apolitical.
Sigh. Contrary to what you may believe, science is not apolitical. You can never separate the science from industry, politics, and media. They all exist in an interdependent cycle. Each influencing and reinforcing the other. Forever in flux.
The reason why visible minorities still face barriers today is because of the racist policies of the past. And those racist polices are based on the objective science of white superiority. The reason why women still face barriers today are because of the sexist polices of the past. And those sexist polices are based on the objective science of male superiority.
Inslee struggles to create and pass a climate change bill that has to make it through the Republican controlled senate. Hence the reason why climate change believers are pushing the economic argument. They're now smart enough to realize (I hope), that people don't get elected because of their environmental policies (Inslee is the exception). They get elected because of their economic policies. The fact that the senate is Republican controlled tells you the priorities of Washington voters at the time.
Both Munn and Inslee lament the fact that most people don't think that man-made climate change is a serious issue. Hence, the fear mongering. Fear is a trusted method to spur any action.
Bittman then talks to climate scientists Dr. Michael Oppenheimer and Dr. Ben Strauss who tells him that man-made climate change causes the sea level rise and makes Sandy worse than it would have been 50 years ago.
Sorry, but that's not a falsifiable claim. And with the reinterpretations of all past climate events through the filter of man-made climate change, future claims will only become more ideological. While you may think that the science is getting better, in reality, it's getting worse (see Philosophy Reborn Part III: Science).
Strauss goes on to talk about how it all works. Unfortunately, the explanation is merely ideological speculation. Why? Because climate change is not a falsifiable theory. In order for something to be considered objective science it has to be falsifiable and able to predict future events with accuracy (see Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose & Part III: Science).
Physics and chemistry can do this. Almost every other scientific discipline can't. It's just people guessing based on unfalsifiable theories and models of how they think the world works.
The directors than show the devastation of Hurricane Sandy with the warnings from climate change believers (queue the edgy tense background music). Social conditioning at its best.
Bittman is surprised that Christie's policies don't take into account the extra 2-7 ft of sea rise projected by climate change scientists. Would these be the same projections as the melting of the Himalayan glaciers [1]?
Bittman goes to the Netherlands to take a look at their measures against flooding. And it's pretty good. Generally speaking, proper drainage is all you need. You don't have to elevate houses in New Jersey. You just need proper drainage. And there are numerous methods to accomplish that.
This isn't a climate change problem. It's an infrastructure and political problem. Incompetent people are in charge of municipal and state governments that don't know how to create proper drainage to account for the hurricane season.
Every year, major cities around the world have numerous floods. And every time, climate change believers try to indoctrinate the public with their ideologies. In reality, you just need proper drainage on a mass scale. It's not rocket science.
Back in Washington with the climate change bill vs. Big Coal, Munn says that:
Coal is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the world.
While that's true, the unacknowledged second is animal agriculture. Many climate change scientists are bending the science to low ball that amount. Why? Because traditional energy has to be the villain. The moment that the climate change movement as a whole says that animal agriculture is a significant climate change problem and that we all have to be vegans, almost everyone on the planet (aside from people in Israel and California) will tune out.
In a crowded room Oppenheimer says that the hundred year storm will now happen every five years due to man-made climate change. That sounds like a prediction. Is it falsifiable? Nope. That means that it's ideological. He's just guessing based on unfalsifiable theories and models. The fact that he can give or take a few years ensures that his predication will be correct. That's not falsifiable objective science. That's ideological science at its best.
In the end, Inslee uses his executive power to reduce GHG emissions. But the rise of executive decisions that undercut house/senate debates will usually lead to more polarized positions and people in government (for both Republicans and Democrats).
References:
[1] Bagla, Pallava. IPCC Finally Acknowledges Its "Himalayan Blunder." Scientific American. April 4, 2014.