I’ve recently been engaging in climate science, the settled nature of it and the implications it has on politics.
For me, my take remains the same:
CO2 is a green house gas
Man contributes to increasing levels of CO2
Green house gases contribute to a warming world
Man has warmed the world more than it otherwise would have.
I am not convinced of catastrophic global warming. Neither are 97% of the world’s scientists. In fact, the IPCC itself states:
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
Most skeptics I know and read are of the same position. We agree that the world is warming, that man is contributing but doubt the degree and future catastrophic consequences – the science isn’t in.
You would think such a position could easily be mainstream. Admitting past actions and waiting for the science to come in on future actions. But we’re dealing with the Left here, a group of people completely unhinged from reality. For evidence, ask yourself, given that climate science is complex and that we admit to not knowing all there is to know, look at two groups of people.
One group is made up of a population totally and completely in lock step. Not one member of the group doubts the group thought and not one member votes against this group thought.
The second group is made up of diverse opinions. There is debate. There is an element of open mindedness. Politicians in this second group do not vote in a block.
The first group are made up of folks on the left – they claim they believe in science. They don’t. They believe in the near religion of man made catastrophic global warming. The second group is made up of those on the right.
We believe in science.
As evidence of this fact, we were given a demonstration this week:
In the latest sign of what some see as growing rigidity of thought among American liberals, new New York Times columnist Bret Stephens has been skewered online by readers of the paper for his first column. The subject of that column was a growing rigidity of thought among American liberals.
In a recognition of how serious the situation had become, executive editor Dean Baquet appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources on Sunday morning, asking host Brian Stelter, “Didn’t we learn from this past election that our goal should be to understand different views?”
Apparently not. It’s unclear how many people have dropped their subscriptions over Stephens column, and how much of the outrage was amplified by social media. Either way, the anger is a sign of a deeper struggle on the American left over what, exactly, are the core values of the Democratic Party. There are many competitors: identity politics, wage equality, reproductive choice, renewable energy. Which are central, and which can be treated as ancillary concerns? Liberals are painfully, publicly asking themselves that question.
Liberals are cancelling their subscription to the New York Times becuase they are forced to share ideas in their safe space.
Tolerant left indeed.