Climate Change Conspiracy or Cover-up?


conspiricy theory or coverupI would like to thank IFLScience for this wonderful little graphic that depicts in very simple terms how we should be assessing the evidence in the scientific community regarding climate change and just maybe why there are discrepancies in the scientific community. It is still part of this weekends funny challenge as it is quite a humorous approach to what is in fact a serious issue.

14 thoughts on “Climate Change Conspiracy or Cover-up?

  1. The Right Wing morons in this country couldn’t care less about the environment… They claim who needs polar bears….morons!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Sigh. I sat and thought about this for a while Jenni and it would be so easy to let it just go, but I can’t. It would be nice if the graphic were true, and I don’t doubt that the oil industry side is true, but I’m not so sure the Environmental Group side is true. It just isn’t that simple. I know you do PR for a living and I am not that convinced that graphs like the one above convince thoughtful citizens – the ones you want on your side – of climate change. In fact they may just alienate the very demographic you need to help sway environmental issues. The science around global warming is very fuzzy. Yes, there are some very bad signs – like the serious reduction of the polar ice caps – but there is also a great deal of controversy. As humans we’ve only been measuring and recording weather patterns for 100-150 years. Some weather patterns appear (from glacial records and tree ring analysis) to have cycles of hundreds or thousands of years. We don’t have nearly enough information from anecdotal observations to know if we are creating global warming. There are some very respected and independent scientists who are funded by public grants, who are not sure global warming is being created by humans.

    All that being said, I think we need to take global warming /climate change very seriously. The issue isn’t really whether we are creating it – the issue is that IF we are creating it, we may reach a tipping point of no return before we get the evidence we need to be sure. We need to act and act now to make incremental changes as quickly as we can. We can affect change positively – for instance we changed our behaviour and fixed the ozone problem. We can stabilize and reduce our contribution to global warming as well – whatever our effect on it is. We are wasting time arguing about a problem whose outcome will be evident soon enough. It’s like having panels of experts arguing about the oucome of a horse race – that’s irrelevant, for the race will determine the outcome, not the experts. We need to stop arguing and start addressing the issues. It’s like being an alcoholic (we’re addicted to our destructive life habits and lifestyles) – no change will happen until we take responsibility.

    Like

    • The fact that it was oversimplified was the reason it made it into the weekend funny as while theoretically true in practicality it’s really just a bit of a laugh.

      If I were to do a serious piece on climate change I would present both opposing views. However I am of the belief that fiance does play an intergral role in what is researched. The environment lobby groups do have access to large funds but they cannot compete with government or industry bases funding. As such funding available for those to look at alternate reasons for climate changes, the impact of fossil fuels etc on the environment and other related issues would recieve the greater proportion of funding that is out there. In this way the balance is not equal but it doesn’t necessarily refute the findings. I have a cartoon that I will put up for the final of this weekend funny which I think you’ll appreciate and it makes a good point. Personally I do believe in climate change and the human impact on our world but I am currently more concerned with the ongoing despoilment of our planet for profit regardless of whether or not it impacts the climate.

      Like

    • Totally agree. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. We take out insurance on our house and cars to safeguard against an event that is an outside possibility (I’ve never made an insurance claim and nor did my parents but we having been paying just in case because we know that if it does happen we have protected ourselves). We need to take out insurance against climate change because if we don’t and it is true it will be too late to do anything then.
      I also think that we are missing exciting opportunities by ignoring climate change. What an exciting place the world could be with different styles of housing, motor vehicles and goodness knows what else.
      I loved the graphic.

      Like

      • Thank you and I agree the Pascal Wager theory applies here I think as does the chance to find newer and better ways to interact with our environment without despoiling it.

        Like

      • Both of your points are excellent Irene. I’d not thought of it in terms of insurance but that is a perfect analogy.(if not a truism). There are far too many factors to accurately predict what will happen and how – and we have to purchase some insurance in case the odds go against us. We have a hard time getting a weather forecast accurate more than a day in advance, how the heck do we think we will ever be able to predict the outcome of climate change on a system as complex as this whole world? Pfffft. Forget it. Just reduce our impact and contiue to do so as quickly as we can.

        And I am in complete agreement with you Irene on the amazing solutions we could comeup with to reduce our impact. Not only can we find ways to reduce our footprint, in the process I am sure we will also increase the efficiency of our energy use ( reduced energy use can mean doing less or it can mean doing more for the same amount of energy). And there are some dandy technologies out there that just need some encouragement to produce unforeseeable impacts on our daily lives. I’d never heard of Pascal’s Wager until Jenni brought it up, so I checked it out. It applies in a way but, as you pointed out the gains in efficiency alone will ultumately pay for the cost of waging a bet on the future. So there is no down side. I do suspect that big energy would like to limit the increase in efficiency of energy use – it would potnetially cut into their profits.

        Like

      • Paul We are in total agreement. Lets hope that there is someone who believes that we can’t afford to take the risk and is as excited by possibilities as we are that is in a position of such influence to really bring some of this to reality and soon…. πŸ™‚

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s