The billion dollar environmental industry; the many political issues that are driven by environmentalism; the many organizations that rely on environmental-minded people donating money to them. Those people want to prove it. Those people make money on it.
But for the most part, the bias isn't based on any direct gain, but more on the religion-like nature of environmental belief itself. That will be the part you reject out of hand, but think about it closely and you may see my point.
At some point it became a "movement". It's a belief that is held on faith. How much of environmentalism is based on how it affects mankind and how much is based on simply prioritizing the environment as holding value in its own right, regardless of its effect on us? The latter portion of the belief is functionally identical to a religion. It's nature worship, pure and simple. Many people have adopted that religion. And the last thing adherents to a religion are interested in, or likely to generate, is actual science.
They know the answers they want, and listen only to people who give the answers they want to hear. Fortunately for them, there is no shortage of people giving them the answers they want to hear. Flawed science has been used as a justification for political and religious action for as long as science has been around.
Obviously you hold your opinion strongly and I have no hope of shaking it, but ask yourself this: Why do you, you specifically, believe in man-made global warming? When did you adopt that belief and why? Your first instinct will be to think of a point where some wise individual explained the science behind it to you, but think harder. You probably already held the belief at that time. I'm guessing that you, like most other people, adopted the belief from your peers and national news. Your peers are likely no more able to understand climatology than you or me, and national news doesn't even try to be unbiased on the issue any more.
I don't expect anyone to change their opinion on man-made global warming, especially since it now holds the unshakable faith of a religious view to many, but I just want people to consider the source. Environmental study groups are biased. They go in to the study with a pre-set conclusion and go about trying to prove it. They're not bad. they're not "lying". They have no intention of duping the public. They're just doing their best to prove something they consider a given. And they feel obligated to do it as strongly as possible because, in their belief system, man-made global warming is a crisis that needs to e dealt with at the international level. So they have no time to dilly-dally with questions about whether it's happening at all.
Me, personally? 1982 or so, when I was eight years old. And, yeah, I saw a bunch of the evidence, presented in ways that were appropriate for third-graders. But even by that time, I had a pretty good bullshit detector -- I'd realized that the DARE stuff they were trying to teach us was bullshit, but this stuff wasn't.
Jokes aside. You learned about global climate change as a child. I can't think of a better word so forgive the strength of this one: you were "indoctrinated".
Learning things as a child, especially if your parents confirm it (don't know if yours did or didn't), is where core beliefs come from.
For instance, I am overly patriotic. Too much so. I logically know that I'm too much so, but my core belief nags me every time the issue comes up. On any dispute, my gut reaction is "America is right, you're wrong," and it takes deliberate, rational, logical thought for me to conclude otherwise.
I believe that sort of "core belief" is the reason there is so much "altruistic" environmentalism out there. (I define altruistic environmentalism as being environmental stances that are not driven by a desire to better people's lives). And I believe it is responsible for skewed science.
But for the most part, the bias isn't based on any direct gain, but more on the religion-like nature of environmental belief itself. That will be the part you reject out of hand, but think about it closely and you may see my point.
At some point it became a "movement". It's a belief that is held on faith. How much of environmentalism is based on how it affects mankind and how much is based on simply prioritizing the environment as holding value in its own right, regardless of its effect on us? The latter portion of the belief is functionally identical to a religion. It's nature worship, pure and simple. Many people have adopted that religion. And the last thing adherents to a religion are interested in, or likely to generate, is actual science.
They know the answers they want, and listen only to people who give the answers they want to hear. Fortunately for them, there is no shortage of people giving them the answers they want to hear. Flawed science has been used as a justification for political and religious action for as long as science has been around.
Obviously you hold your opinion strongly and I have no hope of shaking it, but ask yourself this: Why do you, you specifically, believe in man-made global warming? When did you adopt that belief and why? Your first instinct will be to think of a point where some wise individual explained the science behind it to you, but think harder. You probably already held the belief at that time. I'm guessing that you, like most other people, adopted the belief from your peers and national news. Your peers are likely no more able to understand climatology than you or me, and national news doesn't even try to be unbiased on the issue any more.
I don't expect anyone to change their opinion on man-made global warming, especially since it now holds the unshakable faith of a religious view to many, but I just want people to consider the source. Environmental study groups are biased. They go in to the study with a pre-set conclusion and go about trying to prove it. They're not bad. they're not "lying". They have no intention of duping the public. They're just doing their best to prove something they consider a given. And they feel obligated to do it as strongly as possible because, in their belief system, man-made global warming is a crisis that needs to e dealt with at the international level. So they have no time to dilly-dally with questions about whether it's happening at all.
-ATW
Reply
Reply
Jokes aside. You learned about global climate change as a child. I can't think of a better word so forgive the strength of this one: you were "indoctrinated".
Learning things as a child, especially if your parents confirm it (don't know if yours did or didn't), is where core beliefs come from.
For instance, I am overly patriotic. Too much so. I logically know that I'm too much so, but my core belief nags me every time the issue comes up. On any dispute, my gut reaction is "America is right, you're wrong," and it takes deliberate, rational, logical thought for me to conclude otherwise.
I believe that sort of "core belief" is the reason there is so much "altruistic" environmentalism out there. (I define altruistic environmentalism as being environmental stances that are not driven by a desire to better people's lives). And I believe it is responsible for skewed science.
-ATW
Reply
Leave a comment