November 2nd, 2007 Posted in Ethical/Eco, Psychology
Climate change: Requirements for a well founded argument
Ok, enough people waffling on about “global warming”, “climate change”, “cO2” offsets etc etc. Back to basics for me. I dont know what is happening with the climate. This is fine, I am not jumping to premature conclusions based on weak media articles. An argument requires premises and supporting evidence to reach a firm conclusion. Therefore, for anyone to present their conclusions, I want to start seeing the following fundamentals addressed:
- Is the world’s climate changing?
- Is this change unified across the globe?
- If so, is it getting hotter or colder?
- Are these changes within normal tolerances on a long term dataset?
- If all of the above hold, is human activity a contributing factor?
- If it is, what activities of ours are contributing, and where?
- If all of the above, what can we do about it?
- Will small scale changes such as swapping light bulbs and turning the heating down by one degree make the required changes?
- If they will, then make these changes compulsory – for example stop selling the evil light bulbs.
- If these small changes make a minimal difference, then tackle the larger influences with drastic measures. I’m talking about changing power sources immediately. Not charging a premium and getting rich off it – just stop it right now. If it is such a serious issue of global proportions, it requires serious measures.
- Taxation and “offset vouchers” are not addressing the root of the problem, but adding another layer of complexity (and profit).
Most, if not all information on climate change is political and sensationalist in nature. Many things presented as “facts” are in fact “opinion”. Cute articles on “top ten ways to save the planet” ignore that their assumptions are not solid. Scientific opinion is divided on what is happening. Anything based on theory could turn out to be wrong, at any time.
At the same time, I am all for using less of everything, and having a low impact. I am happy to do this for pollution and resource conserving reasons, aside from “climate change”. Next time someone starts bleating about what they saw on the news, they can back it up with some premises or shut up, as their conclusion is weak.