Climate Change: Discerning the Hoax

If you keep telling people what they already know enough times, most will believe you when you tell them what they can’t know.  As any successful, confidence man, politician, business leader, preacher, and radio commentator knows, once you can build that confidence, you can lie about almost anything.  It’s a fact of life.  And, as Hitler argued in Mein Kampf, the bigger the lie, the more it will be believed.

To understand why people take different positions regarding climate change, then, we need to understand how the believers and deniers think.

We all have one thing in common:  We weigh the truth of what we hear against what we see or experience. We dismiss what doesn’t “compute.” We tend to believe what we see in our own neighborhoods over what is reported about distant places on the news.  We respect our own experience more than we trust the reporting of others.  

Similarly, we tend to trust people who seem to have something in common with us.  Those of us who express honest opinions in vulgar or crass terms tend to believe that people who use the same terms are simply “being honest,” even though style and honesty are two totally separate things.  We see this repeatedly in diverse groups.  Religious people will believe almost any religious person (of the same faith tradition) over an atheist, even when it comes to non-religious topics.  Those who believe that research is necessary will tend to believe research over casual observation, even if the research is manipulated.  To some extent, we are all sheep looking for support from other sheep.

With such a diversity of groups, each getting its information from different sources and filtering out information that contradicts their personal experiences, it is easy to see why the country is so divided.  And anyone who taps into that division can use it to his/her advantage.  Add to this bubbling cauldron the belief that opinions don’t have to be related to fact and ... tick-tock, tick-tock, KABOOM!

Which is where we are now... about two tick-tocks from KABOOM.

For those who don’t base their opinions on facts, only a radical change in their experience will change their minds. 

Keeping these things in mind, we should ask ourselves WHY we believe what we believe about climate change.  In areas hit repeatedly by unusual and terrible weather events, educated people may be easily convinced by the climate science data.  However, in those areas where the changes are more subtle, less-educated people may be less likely to believe in climate change.  Each will gravitate toward the evidence that seems most believable, most consistent with what they are experiencing.

Now here’s the rub:  Somebody is right, and somebody is wrong.  You can’t average out the opinions expressed in a poll.  And the opinion of the majority does not change the facts.  So maybe we should be asking the following questions:

• Who profits from inaction regarding climate, and by how much?

• Who would profit from acceptance that climate change is a reality?

• Is it likely that 97% of climate scientists are wrong?

• What are the arguments on both sides, and what evidence are they NOT including in their arguments?

• How could the burning of fossil fuels NOT impact the environment?

I don’t mean to imply a false equivalency of positions.  Reality is reality, regardless of what we think of it. I absolutely believe that the climate is changing rapidly.  The evidence confirms my own experience.  I believe the 97% of climate scientists who have come to same conclusion.  I do not believe these scientists because I’m a fan of Al Gore (I’m not a fan).  I don’t believe them because the position seems to be embraced by many Democrats (who cares?). I don’t even believe them because the fossil fuel industry has a lot to gain from debunking the scientific arguments and a lot to lose otherwise.  I believe that climate change is real because the propensity of the evidence, the logic of the scientific arguments - and my own two eyes - compel me to believe it.