Climate Change: A Heartfelt Confession
So I’ve been reading quite a few social media posts from leftists, and I have to say: it got to me. I had a change of heart.
Let me explain.
Consider “climate change.” There was a time when I thought that maybe it was a good idea for everyone to consider the arguments of the climate change deniers, because I thought (wrongly—I’ll explain why in a second) that the best way to really understand any complicated issue was to listen to multiple points of view—including how people on one side of an argument respond to arguments made by the other side.
Because in theory, each side would be able to discover holes in the other sides’ arguments and bring them to light, and in the end our understanding of the issue at question would be much more robust.
But I was wrong, and here’s why: when climate change is THE preeminent existential crisis facing all humanity—all life on Earth, in fact—then I am sorry, but you have no choice but to completely ignore ANYONE who doesn’t take the issue as seriously as you do!!!
And if there is one single solitary person who is absolutely terrified OUT OF THEY’S MIND about climate change, then we can NOT HESITATE. That PROVES that climate change is the preeminent existential crisis facing all humanity!!!
How could it be otherwise?
It’s only logical.
We need to honor our fellow human being when they have terror-filled visions, or we aren’t really being very human. Honor their truth. Amen.
I mean, the other day I saw a clip of a video interview with a climate change activist. He was a young kid, but mouths of babes, right? And he said that if we don’t stop climate change, when we get hot, our sweat won’t evaporate to cool us off any more.
WE WILL BOIL IN OUR OWN SWEAT.
Holy way to die, Batman. I don’t know about you, but I really really do NOT want to boil to death in my own sweat. Do you???
And think about it. Dealing with what the denialists say is time-consuming and EXHAUSTING. It takes FOREVER. And as soon as you argue one denialist into submission: up pops another one, with the same terrible talking points.
I mean, it never ends!!!
For example, I saw a headline or tweet or something lately that said that every single computer model projecting the effects of rising CO2 levels has, so far, turned out to be completely wrong.
I guess the idea is that if you go back in the past, look at what the models were projecting at that time, and then check their projections against what the actual temperatures turned out to be, the climate models universally fail.
I assume (I don’t know, I’m not a programmer, let alone a climate scientist, duh) it’s because modeling the climate is pretty hard. And if you mess up any of your assumptions/inputs, what comes out the other end is pure garbage, and so far we haven’t quite figured out what exactly the inputs should be.
Well, okay, here’s the thing: it’s a bunch of hooey to worry our heads about how bad the climate change models are—or if they are even bad or whether maybe that was misinformation.
I DON’T NEED TO KNOW IF THEY’RE HOOEY.
BECAUSE WE’RE ALL GOING TO BOIL TO DEATH IN OUR OWN SWEAT.
See what I mean?
There are NO GOOD REASONS to pause for even ONE MILLISECOND on mandating policies to reduce CO2 emissions, because failure to take action exposes us to such horrible consequences.
Make sense?
And sure, I know, maybe the “boil to death in your own sweat” thing was probably hyperbole (although the kid seemed sincerely distressed—and as I said, we need to honor that) or maybe the kid got his facts wrong and that wouldn’t happen unless the Earth got as hot as say, Venus or the sun or something, although I am sure that absolutely could happen if the temperatures keep rising. Just a matter of time.
But even if you and I don’t personally boil to death in our own sweat sometime in the near future, plenty of other awful things WILL happen and ARE happening. I see it on the news CONSTANTLY and I am sure you do, too—so no excuses.
WE JUST DON’T HAVE THE TIME TO WASTE.
I mean, take any random wildfire. Sure, there might be contributory factors like failure to maintain power lines (or turn off power to them during high winds) or remove dry tinder from forests or even, in some cases, they’re caused by arsonists.
But if we had to stop and actually talk through which of those factors is important and which aren’t – let alone figure out whether controlling those factors might be easier, less expensive, and better policy than reducing CO2 emissions (makes my brain tired just to LIST that) – we’d still be arguing about it fifty years from now, and NO DOUBT by then it would be way, way too late.
I mean, we’ve had so many reprieves already, considering things like how the Arctic was going to melt, and polar bears would be extinct, and Greenland would have no more glaciers, and our kids would never see snow again—there are tons of predictions like that that haven’t come true (YET) but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have, right?
So we got lucky, people!
What happens when our luck runs out?
This image gives you an idea.
Or take what Joe Rogan said recently on his podcast—the bit about how China and India are contributing so much to CO2 levels that there is nothing Americans can do that could possibly offset it.
Can you IMAGINE trying to persuade China and India to deal with their CO2 levels? How long that would take? Years and years and YEARS.
Ugh!
And in the meantime: what? Let everybody else in the world just coast along like nothing was wrong?
It’s a moral question, clearly! It is absolutely immoral to putter around happily in your gas-powered car, while India and China are spewing all that CO2 into the air, and then say that you want them to take you seriously and please stop.
Think of it as our sackcloth and ashes moment. We need to publicly repent, PUBLICLY SUFFER, to help the benighted countries on this planet understand just how serious this is—just like religious devotees publicly suffer to get people to repent of their others kinds of sins.
So, bottom line: I’m done even bothering with anything the denialists say!!!
Yes, some of them seem to be highly credentialed. Yes, some of them seem to be thoughtful and articulate. Yes, some of their arguments seem persuasive.
Yes, on the face of it, it would seem that something as complex as the Earth’s climate might seem relatively difficult to understand, let alone modify, without considering all kinds of complexities and nuances, which might actually take generations and generations under normal circumstances.
Yes, it does seem a bit worrying, considering that so far we haven’t done a stellar job at climate modeling, to consider things like injecting particular matter into the air to cool things off. Because what if something went wrong and we triggered an ice age or something? Are we going to build a giant air cleaner to vacuum up all the stuff we spewed to raise the temperature again?
Sorry, I said it was a bit worrying, but I have no doubt that the folks in charge have thought it all through and are perfectly confident that their ideas will work exactly as planned. They always do, right? (Topic for a future post, there, btw!)
For example, painting everything white would probably also work, and it would be a lot easier to paint it all a different color later than to vacuum particulate matter out of the upper atmosphere. (Not sure about that but seems logical, unless there are extremely large vacuum cleaners on the drawing board somewhere that I haven’t heard about.)
In any case, there is NO time for worrying about complexities and nuances when we’re facing a crisis this extreme.
Let alone time for questioning any of the underlying beliefs that climate changers have about ourselves and our cause. Like, you know, one of the things the denialists say is that there are people on the left who would, if push comes to shove, rather see huge numbers of human beings die (or never be born) than see the Earth’s climate altered by human activity.
I’m sure that’s not true, or, if it is true it’s not a position held by most leftists, consciously or even unconsciously. It couldn’t be true, because leftists are the side with the brains and the heart—well-known fact. Climate change activists are all acting out of high-mindedness and love.
What they want—sorry, old habit, there, I mean: what WE want for us is for our own good. You can take that to the bank. Politics 101.
And if we all want a better world, so what if people might have to live without cars or the ability to choose what they want to eat or whatever? It’s a small price to pay.
Lockdowns? If that’s what it takes, so be it. We survived the COVID lockdowns, right? Yes, it was bad for our kids and suicide rates and economic well-being, but we survived—we showed ourselves that lockdowns really can be a permanent lifestyle, if we just show a little fortitude. And it will get even easier when we have better technology to control our movements—like if you’re in prison you are freed of having to pick which restaurant for dinner. Bad analogy maybe but you get my point.
Because in the end, NO amount of human suffering is too great when the fate of the Earth itself is in the balance.
And, as I said, time is of the essence.
So yes: we need to absolutely flatten anyone who stands in our way. Bring out the steamroller, baby. Tear our society down to the studs and rebuild it, nail by nail, solar panel by solar panel, into a shining new energy-efficient world—and then, and ONLY then, does it make sense to take a deep breath and consider any other issue—contaminates in our food and water, obesity, rising death rates in the people 25-40, drug addiction, international instability, the migrant crisis.
That can all wait. That is all peanuts compared to climate change.
We have a planet to save!!!