Yes, But Can We Afford One?

An article by Wall Street Journal employee Pete du Pont, in which he argues that the public “could use an honest debate” on climate change, has just come out in the WSJ (where else?).

We cannot risk taking du Pont’s advice. What he forgets, or deliberately fails to tell his readers, is that debates take at least an hour. They can easily break the two-hour mark, depending on the format.

But we need to act on climate now.

Not in a couple of hours. Not next month. Not in an hour. Now.

Du Pont’s motivation, then, is clearly to stall for time. Seen in this light, the call for “debate” is almost understandable (if not forgivable). Hey: if you can’t deny it, delay it!

Look for such tactics to become increasingly central to the denialist MO this year as the science itself becomes less and less controversial. Remember, people who oppose science are, at bottom, neophobes with an irrational addiction to the status quo. And when change terrifies you you’ll do anything to slow it down—no matter how foolish you make yourself sound in the process. (This is why my New Year’s resolution was to say “science refusard” less and “climate retardard” more.) If the climate-change wars have proven anything it’s the visceral conservativeness, the blind fear of change, of the left half of the human bell curve.

Of course, my critique of du Pont’s desperate call for a debate doesn’t even take into account the considerable time it would take to find a venue and arrange security (hardly a trivial task when the topic is as “heated” as this one). But as if these flaws weren’t fatal enough, du Pont also ignores the problem of recruiting participants. Real climate scientists are notoriously reluctant to debate. Even if they agreed to do so—and as any scientist on earth will tell you, getting scientists to agree on anything is like herding cats—they would then need to select their opponents. It could easily take weeks of negotiations just to nominate three or four skeptics whose presence on the same stage wouldn’t offend the sensibilities, or tarnish the good name, of anyone on the Affirmative team.

And as climate scientists have been telling us since the late 80s, that’s time we simply don’t have.

When will we finally believe them?

Denialism equals delayalism equals debatalism, folks.

One thought on “Yes, But Can We Afford One?

  1. CJ Orach - peopleneedpower

    13 years ago the UN stated that their Climate Models could not be used to predict what the climate would be in the future.

    The IPCC said in the 2001 Science Report in TAR:

    “…in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible…”

    IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

    Subsequently the IPCC statement of 13 years ago has been proven to be correct. Almost all of the IPCC models have been proven false by reality However, (despite the IPCC’s full knowledge that their models cannot and have not predicted future climate) the IPCC is using said models as the basis for taking “immediate action” to shut down 85% of the worlds’s sources of energy from fossil fuel. http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/16/97-of-the-climate-scientists-have-been-wrong-for-16-years-but-we-should-still-listen-to-them/ Taking “immediate action” to shut down 85% of the world’s energy sources from fossil fuel to “save the planet from climate change” would drive humanity back to the dark ages when life was short and brutal.

    Given this revelation immediate action should be taken to investigate the IPCC and EPA for knowingly using inaccurate models to spread a climate of fear about future Catastrophic Climate Change. A Climate of Fear which is driving governments around the world to implement energy policies that will destroy the world’s economy, drive people into perpetual poverty and devastate Nature.

    IPCC Climate Report has led to EPA regulations that are All Pain For No Gain:
    http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/19/decarbonization-can-only-have-marginal-effects-on-future-climate-at-best-ultra-high-price-for-negligible-results/
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin

    The IPCC and EPA Facilitates the Rich Getting Richer for example in the US http://greencorruption.blogspo

    While the Poor Get Shafted with “skyrocketing” fuel costs they cannot afford to pay for that condemns the poor to a life time of poverty.
    http://wp.me/p7y4l-lnm
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/20

    IPCC Climate Report lead to EPA regulations that:

    Destroy Nature with Bird and Bat killing Wind Turbines/Solar
    and Biofuel crops that
    Destroys vast areas of natural habitats and
    Land that grows food crops for people
    Produces a fraction of the energy fossil fuel does at very high costs that hurt the poor the most
    Are weather dependent and do not work in severe weather.



    http://www.examiner.com/articl

    The IPCC and EPA Use politics (not science) to form their reports when the empirical data contradicts their doom and gloom findings:
    How the Global Warming Scare Began http://youtu.be/SyUDGfCNC-k
    Geologist Sebastian Lüning: Scientific Evidence Showing Sun/Oceans As Primary Climate Drivers Is ‘Massive, Overwhelming’! http://shar.es/BdOXQ

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s