argh sputter @#$#@ spit: or, On Climate Change Science

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett/?p=960

My first reaction whenever I read a "let's revisit the climate change 'debate'" article is from the gut: tear hair, gnash teeth, pound head, sputter... recognizing that this feeds the arguments in the article just frustrates me more.

So let me begin by stating that I am not a scientist. Contrary to popular belief, however, I am capable of rational thought, logic and analysis. I have read the arguments of the climate change resisters, and I have reviewed some (certainly not all) the evidence proffered by the IPCC. And I have analysed motivations on both sides, which is certainly more within my bailiwick than reading core samples or statistical data.

I understand that there are people who profit from panic. Unfortunately, I cannot wrap my head around how the people I see arguing for a change in our world to combat human-induced climate change are going to profit, at least in the ways attributed by the other side. Not without accepting that there are vast secret societies running major games on the international scene. Knowing intimately the way that environmental organizations work... I say, no.

I have not seen the shadow of giant conglomerates aiming for world domination, an increase in oil prices, an end to oil companies, a worldwide socialist government, or any of the other equally crazy end-results suggested by the deniers. The people I see arguing for change stand to profit by having... some nature left, some clean air, some drinkable water. Clearly they must be part of a communist plot, with such mighty goals.

I do understand resistance to change. This is an integral part of human nature, along with an infinite capacity for denial, and a vast desire to not lose power gained. So it's very easy to see where people might not embrace a new approach to living that might mean better quality of life but maybe less 'stuff', when 'stuff' in our current context means status and power.

The "let's not change till the science is absolute, and everyone on the planet 100% agrees" is baloney. Scientists know there is no absolute proof. On this basis, the few hundred or so members of the Flat Earth Society would keep us from taking cruises. We'd still be smoking.

What is threatened most if we change? Apparently economy, although Nicholas Stern among others has demonstrated that there is an excellent counter argument to that. What is threatened most if we accept the strongly-evidenced man-made climate change theory and do not change? Um, our ability to continue as a species. I'm on side with evolution on this one. The Precautionary Principle is one of my favourite things.

I do, at least, agree with the blog post author -- at least I think he's making this point -- that there are other corollary benefits to change that may mean more to some people; and that technology is not a magic bullet to change everything.

People need to change, and anyone who has read advice columns to women about not trying to change men knows how that will play out.