The New Debate

Twenty years ago as someone newly interested in global warming, I thought that others would see the light if only they learned the basics.  My first stab at a blog-like website was devoted to that aim.

It was apparent back in those days that the doubters (call them skeptics, disbelievers, deniers, conservatives or whatever you like, the terms are meat for a later post) would come up with one aspect or another to justify their resisting attitude.

One popular theme back then was that humans were not causing carbon dioxide levels to increase, either it was caused by volcanoes or that the data was faulty ("Mauna Loa is a volcano!"). No sooner than that was refuted they came up with one objection after another like some kind of whack-a-mole game. "The planet is too big to be affected by humans!"  "CO2 is a trace gas!" "Al Gore invented it!" "Scientists are only trying to get money!" "It's a hoax!"  Then finally there was the warming hiatus "No global warming since 1998!  Global warming theory doesn't explain that!"  For a excellent treatment of nearly all the denier myths in detail, see the website Skeptical Science.

Following the spike in temperature in 2016, a few have reverted to the "no global warming since..." cries, but for the most part the "debate" over the science is over.  The headlines tell the story.

Not that there was ever a science debate.  Science is not particularly a debatable subject.  Some may debate science topics like evolution or global warming, but those who know science don't see it as a matter of how many are convinced.  (Why science should be a "liberal" idea at all is a subject for another post.)  Fortunately, many have seen the urgent need for action, and entities like the United Nations and savvy businesses have not stopped working on the problem.

Now the debate has turned to where it should have been in the first place -- the economic and political decisions.  And true to form, the deniers have come up with multiple economic  reasons to do nothing. We shouldn't be surprised.

As much as I'd like to write about the science of global warming and climate change which are much easier, this blog will focus where the real fight is -- how we spend our personal and society financial resources, how much, when, and where, and how we can change our economic system to facilitate the goals and not work against them.  Despite what appears to be inaction, encouraging trends are starting to appear.

The old deniers will still deny the policies will work.  They'll point to all the different economic and policy goals as proof that there is no consensus and it is still all a hoax.

Just ignore them. Their minds won't change.  Instead, make the debate about what should be done and what to do to make it happen

Bottom line: The new debate is among liberals and deals with the path forward.