How can you deny climate change? (The mainstream will trumpet!)
Infront of a nationally televised audience, MSNBC will wheel out some middle aged liberal climate scientist with a touch of grey hair who ends up "telling it like it is" with "brutal honesty". The impending doom and gloom is unavoidable IF the "climate change deniers" don't change their tune.
But pause before digesting this narrative.
These "climate experts" have created a false enemy.
Perhaps a sign of the times, "climate change denier" is an allegation worth about as much as the charge of "racism". Everyone, anyone, is a "climate change denier" if their opinion isn't up to spec with the prevailing sentiment.
What does that phrase even mean anymore?
What that phrase means to the climate regulation advocate:
EVERYONE is against them, and THAT is why they can't succeed.
But is EVERYONE really against "the facts" (rising sea temperatures, CO2 levels, and so on)? And even if they were, can't a solution succeed without EVERYONE?
I will argue that almost no one is arguing against "the facts".
Put the loudest, least defensible, "climate change deniers" on stage, front and center. Have MSNBC's climate scientist ask them a series of questions. But don't allow the climate scientist to jump to broad, reaching, self supporting questions.
Have the climate scientist ask the alleged "climate change denier" if the "climate change denier" believes the thermometer is accurate, and that the methodology being used for temperature measurement will pass an integrity test.
I bet, even among the most devote "climate change deniers", almost all will trust the climate scientist's thermometer.
More over, I bet these same "deniers" trust the carbon dioxide and ozone measurement equipment and so on.
Only the measurements are "the facts". The broad, reaching conclusions these climate scientists purport are not facts.
Now I will say climate scientists' conclusions may be strong correlations, they may very well predict general trends and outcomes.
But the root of the climate change disagreement in America isn't tied to these climate scientists correlations, trends, or likely outcomes as a result of rising global temperatures, melting ice, and carbon dioxide.
The real core of this issue is spelled out clear as day. Actually, the core of the issue is what isn't written, in the Constituion:
Tinkering with global climate change is not a federally enumerated power. That is a FACT.
There in lies almost all disagreement with the climate moving forward. Many people on the "climate denier" side get their words, emotions, jumbled. They don't know how to express their disagreement with new taxes, regulation. Their contempt comes across as a denial of science, when in reality it's an innate connection to the Constitution. They know the federal government has no legal place to speak on matters of global climate change, much less regulate and tax on that basis.
Most "climate deniers" trust the thermometers, sensors, and the people that read them. What most "climate deniers" don't approve of is the federal government stepping into a role where they can point to some scientists report (or group of scientists report, or group of anybody's report) and thereby enact sweeping national regulation and taxation. That's not how we agreed legislation would work in this country.
Now the other point I was alluding to is the presence of "climate change deniers" (if they do exist) in no way prevents anyone from creating climate change solutions (if they do exist).
For most climate regulation advocates the existence of a denier is a neccessary crutch. The false enemy helps them sleep at night, as the alleged denier distracts the advocate from their own inadequacy as a problem solver.
With any issue, not just climate change, unanimity is irrelevant.
Just ask Donald Trump the Billionaire:
The Donald doesn't need everyone to agree with him to build a real tangible hotel & casino.
And these climate regulation advocates don't need everyone to agree with them to produce real tangible solutions (or maybe they do because their potential maxes out at arguing and not producing results).
At the end of the day, if you want to solve climate related problems your most direct route is by getting people to fall in love with their environment.
People only love what they know. And they only protect what they love.
Make the public aware of what they can do in nature, introduce them to what they don't know. Take them hiking, swimming, skiing, fishing. Have them drink from the running rivers. Soon enough, one by one, they'll fall in love with nature. Then and only then will they protect their environment.
Stop the games. People are smart. They won't be tricked into protecting their environment, you have to introduce them to their enivornment first.
PCT Mile 1,153.4