Getting to the Point About Climate Change

Posted on February 11, 2013



This is purely to counteract a dangerous cocktail of boredom and anxiety that I decide to write an evolutionary piece… it’s really not that flash or as scientifically thought provoking as it sounds; basically I start writing something just for the sake of writing something and let the subject (or story) develop as I write.  This is no story though as climate change is hardly as fictional as the caviar crowd would try to convince themselves and the rest of us that it is. On that note I can very well afford caviar and given I like to be clean cut and in a suit as often as possible, I probably look like one of them (a banker not a fish egg), But I prefer roe in a good old Sri Lankan fish curry than caviar. Anyway …


And even I’m only mildly spiky. So let’s get to this bug bear of mine, which is about people getting bogged down in this and that, this is why and this is how details of something, totally forgetting the whole point in the process. It’s a recurring theme I whinged about in a previous article (GOD or MOD), where I discussed this issue in relation to religious debate. It’s no different to for climate change.

So let make this one thing clear first and foremost. In the world of science, there are many dissenting opinions about everything. There always was, there is and will always be, and it’s one of the essential ingredients for scientific progression and enlightenment.  It is because people in this field, i.e. research scientists are smart enough and know they are smart enough to question everything and analyse them rather than accept anything at face value. This is how things are improved and developed instead of being stagnated on.

It does not discredit the publicised findings or suggest significant and sustained dissent (enough to make it a potential fact, as opposed to a fact), it merely suggest that it is scrutinised and people try to evaluate it by seeing if they can get to the same conclusion themselves, which may have slight discrepancies due to different research methods etc. Even when some argued the world was spherical, there were respected contemporary scholars who attempted to argue on behalf of the theory that it was flat.

Also, by scientists I mean the real ones with peer evaluated research papers, field experience, and PHDs that actually require years of study culminating in a massive thesis, which is then subjected to and passes the scrutiny of the academic crème de la crème, before you have to publically present and defend your findings against even your own supervisor.

The great majority of the world’s eminent and QUALIFIED climate scientists have concluded that climate change is real and dangerous and that it’s coming now. And anyone who has been alive fore the last 20-30 years and who did not spend most of that time, shifting between air conditioned mansions, an air conditioned limo and a nice office with glass windows but with perfect HVAC climate control, would feel it is happening. Note I said QUALIFIED which filters out the fake experts such as Monckdon (who has absolutely no background in science after post high school) or a fringe scientist who is hired by the same kind of lobbies that hired ‘experts’ to say that smoking was good for you, in order to support certain commercial entities who did not invest in R & D or diversifying their business. You don’t ask a brewer to cut your hair, you ask a hair dresser. So, fact!

Also, as an aside, ponder this. Personally I think full sustainability can never be achieved (complete non-dependence on finite resources), but if we do as much as we can, we can buy enough time to develop technologies and ensure the global access to these to adapt. If we do as much as we can, we don’t have to go back to the stone age because the oil ran out and we got nothing to replace it with, but can ensure a continued level of dignified human life over the natural course of this cycle (like the dinosaurs we will die out eventually, but unlike them we are trying our best to quicken its arrival) that coexists with the rest of nature. Every generation has its defining moment. For our great grandparents it was the Great War. For our grandparents it was WW II. For our parents, depending on where they were, it was financial trouble, communism’s rise/fall, Vietnam, civil wars, civil rights, race riots, AIDs. For us it’s the climate. I asked my grandfather what he did during the war.  When my grandkids ask me what I did when we faced the challenge of our times and their future was at stake, I want to be able to look them in the eye and say I did something. Don’t you?

And now, finally, let’s get to the point. It’s simple really. The point is and never was if climate change was real, and if we could do something about it. The only point that ever was, is and will be on this matter, but that people tend to completely pass over due to all the hogwash, is this:

If you could do something better, and live in a nice clean environment and not in a pigsty, filled with nauseous fumes, diseases and all-round unpleasantness, if you can conserve and be efficient with resources, even if they are infinite, why wouldn’t you?