The term "climate change" often stirs up unnecessary controversy.
It's clear that climate changes occur, supported by well-documented cycles like Milankovitch Cycles, Little Ice Ages, Glacial and Interglacial Periods, Precession, Maunder Minimums, and historical climate periods such as the Medieval Warm Period, Younger Dryas, and the Holocene Climatic Optimum.
Denying climate change is like denying the existence of the Sun.
This black-and-white view suggests ideological rigidity, "capture" or groupthink, while embracing nuance leads to deeper insights and better questions, such as:
A: Do you believe that humans affect climate change? It seems obvious that human activities do impact the climate. Deforestation, urban heat island effects, overfishing, soil degradation from synthetic fertilizers, ocean acidification, and the disruption of ecosystems from invasive species and human-caused extinctions all have clear observable impacts.
B: Do you consider the primary cause of climate change to be the human-induced increase in carbon dioxide? I hold some reservations about a simplistic view around CO2 being the "primary cause". Shouldn't we also consider methane and other human-related factors previously mentioned? Moreover, could the Sun's activity not have a more significant overall impact?
C: Does the combustion of fossil fuels and other hydrocarbons contribute to climate change primarily through the following mechanisms: CO2, CH4, N2O, Soot, VOCs, Industrial Gases & Ocean Acidification.
How could this NOT ALSO have AN Effect?
I hope people think deeper and ask better questions instead of the misleading “Do you believe in climate change?” The idea that many questions or issues are not simply black and white, or "A or B", but rather a combination of "A, B, and often C", reflects a more nuanced understanding of reality.
What are some BETTER questions like multiple-choice, aimed at moving beyond the dichotomous thinking trap:? How Bout:
1: Is global warming occurring?
2: Does global warming occur naturally?
3: Is human activity the primary cause of global warming?
4: Is it possible that global warming is not occurring, but climate change is?
5: Is climate change part of a natural cycle?
6: Is human activity the primary cause of climate change?
7: Are greenhouse gases a significant factor in climate change?
8: Is carbon dioxide the main contributor to climate change?
9: Is methane from agribusiness and factory farming a major factor in climate change?
10: Does oxygen depletion in the oceans significantly contribute to climate change?
11: Is the idea that carbon dioxide emissions are the main driver of climate change, and the urgency surrounding this claim, being exploited by politicians with covert agendas? Are they using its quantifiability and the public's inclination for straightforward explanations as a pretext to implement a carbon tax, additional hidden taxes, and to instill fear for greater control?
12: Is it possible that while human-induced atmospheric condensation and global dimming might reduce temperatures, thus counteracting solar-driven global warming, the overall impact of increased solar energy still leads to a net increase in global temperatures?
13: Is solar radiation the predominant cause of global warming and climate change?
14: Is galactic radiation a key factor in global warming and climate change?
15: Do multiple human activities (such as pesticide use, deforestation, etc.) together significantly influence global warming and climate change?
16: Should we acknowledge that global warming and climate change result from a combination of natural processes and various human impacts?
17: Did Margaret Thatcher In the late 1980s introduce the idea of a carbon tax, influenced by her faith in market solutions for addressing issues, using the media to push this agenda with the simple idea that carbon dioxide, an easily measurable industrial output, could be regulated via what she labeled as a "corrective tax"? Furthermore, did this move set off a chain reaction in politics, resulting in the polarization and politicization of environmental advocacy around carbon dioxide, exploiting it as a handy story or "white lie" for political gain, which then escalated to the point where funding was channeled exclusively into research that supported this narrative, thereby distancing the issue from objective scientific inquiry and causing deep political division?
18: Does the burning of fossil fuels and other hydrocarbons chiefly impact climate change via emissions like CO2, CH4, N2O, soot, VOCs, and industrial gases, and how do these pollutants relate to ocean acidification?
19: Did Al Gore's pivitol presentaion with oversimplification regarding CO2 and temperature in ice cores lead others to mistakenly think CO2 always causes temperature rises, ignoring the historical lag where initial warming led to CO2 release during Milankovitch cycles?, and was this nuance lost or selectively ignored in discussions about past versus current climate changes?
These questions can hopefully lead to a more nuanced, informed, and productive discussion than the stupid politicized false questions that divide people.
Question #17 seeks to incorporate a common anti-establishment perspective, which should be considered if the goal is to truly embrace a diversity of thought.
It's clear that climate changes occur, supported by well-documented cycles like Milankovitch Cycles, Little Ice Ages, Glacial and Interglacial Periods, Precession, Maunder Minimums, and historical climate periods such as the Medieval Warm Period, Younger Dryas, and the Holocene Climatic Optimum.
Denying climate change is like denying the existence of the Sun.
This black-and-white view suggests ideological rigidity, "capture" or groupthink, while embracing nuance leads to deeper insights and better questions, such as:
A: Do you believe that humans affect climate change? It seems obvious that human activities do impact the climate. Deforestation, urban heat island effects, overfishing, soil degradation from synthetic fertilizers, ocean acidification, and the disruption of ecosystems from invasive species and human-caused extinctions all have clear observable impacts.
B: Do you consider the primary cause of climate change to be the human-induced increase in carbon dioxide? I hold some reservations about a simplistic view around CO2 being the "primary cause". Shouldn't we also consider methane and other human-related factors previously mentioned? Moreover, could the Sun's activity not have a more significant overall impact?
C: Does the combustion of fossil fuels and other hydrocarbons contribute to climate change primarily through the following mechanisms: CO2, CH4, N2O, Soot, VOCs, Industrial Gases & Ocean Acidification.
How could this NOT ALSO have AN Effect?
I hope people think deeper and ask better questions instead of the misleading “Do you believe in climate change?” The idea that many questions or issues are not simply black and white, or "A or B", but rather a combination of "A, B, and often C", reflects a more nuanced understanding of reality.
What are some BETTER questions like multiple-choice, aimed at moving beyond the dichotomous thinking trap:? How Bout:
1: Is global warming occurring?
2: Does global warming occur naturally?
3: Is human activity the primary cause of global warming?
4: Is it possible that global warming is not occurring, but climate change is?
5: Is climate change part of a natural cycle?
6: Is human activity the primary cause of climate change?
7: Are greenhouse gases a significant factor in climate change?
8: Is carbon dioxide the main contributor to climate change?
9: Is methane from agribusiness and factory farming a major factor in climate change?
10: Does oxygen depletion in the oceans significantly contribute to climate change?
11: Is the idea that carbon dioxide emissions are the main driver of climate change, and the urgency surrounding this claim, being exploited by politicians with covert agendas? Are they using its quantifiability and the public's inclination for straightforward explanations as a pretext to implement a carbon tax, additional hidden taxes, and to instill fear for greater control?
12: Is it possible that while human-induced atmospheric condensation and global dimming might reduce temperatures, thus counteracting solar-driven global warming, the overall impact of increased solar energy still leads to a net increase in global temperatures?
13: Is solar radiation the predominant cause of global warming and climate change?
14: Is galactic radiation a key factor in global warming and climate change?
15: Do multiple human activities (such as pesticide use, deforestation, etc.) together significantly influence global warming and climate change?
16: Should we acknowledge that global warming and climate change result from a combination of natural processes and various human impacts?
17: Did Margaret Thatcher In the late 1980s introduce the idea of a carbon tax, influenced by her faith in market solutions for addressing issues, using the media to push this agenda with the simple idea that carbon dioxide, an easily measurable industrial output, could be regulated via what she labeled as a "corrective tax"? Furthermore, did this move set off a chain reaction in politics, resulting in the polarization and politicization of environmental advocacy around carbon dioxide, exploiting it as a handy story or "white lie" for political gain, which then escalated to the point where funding was channeled exclusively into research that supported this narrative, thereby distancing the issue from objective scientific inquiry and causing deep political division?
18: Does the burning of fossil fuels and other hydrocarbons chiefly impact climate change via emissions like CO2, CH4, N2O, soot, VOCs, and industrial gases, and how do these pollutants relate to ocean acidification?
19: Did Al Gore's pivitol presentaion with oversimplification regarding CO2 and temperature in ice cores lead others to mistakenly think CO2 always causes temperature rises, ignoring the historical lag where initial warming led to CO2 release during Milankovitch cycles?, and was this nuance lost or selectively ignored in discussions about past versus current climate changes?
These questions can hopefully lead to a more nuanced, informed, and productive discussion than the stupid politicized false questions that divide people.
Question #17 seeks to incorporate a common anti-establishment perspective, which should be considered if the goal is to truly embrace a diversity of thought.
Comments
Climate change is surely the greatest marketing gimmick of the age we're in. No doubt about that! The climate, as you clearly outlined, has always been changing. My central question in response to that is "Are we still able to change with it?"
Of all the abilities and characteristics that have enabled humans to suvive this long, it is our ability to adapt the environment to meet our biological needs, and move into the realm of desires that exist well beyond the means of simple survival. The main snag being that we have adapted our methods to such an extreme extent, that we barely have the ability to survive in the natural world like every other wild organism does on a daily basis.
And without that resilience and ability to adapt to the natural world around us, my second question would be, "Do we still have the knowledge, tools, time and cognitive ability to adapt to a climate shift, if the whole of our contrived society came crashing down like a house of cards?"
Somwhere between the contrived society that we have adpated to suit our needs and desires, and the natural world we've been so far removed from, is where our ability to adapt, survive and continue to thrive will be at its peak performance, with respect to the caring capacity of the natural resources we depend on to build the contrivance, which must not be depleted or wasted on fruitless pursuits that produce only money at the expense of Life.
________________________________________________________________________
Protip for posting long form discussions:
Just so you are aware, if you want your discussions to be made listed and searchable in the network search engine, then you also have the ability to post your long form discussions into the dedicated discussion threads section of the network. There you can add a title to be displayed and listed in the discussions section, and have way more publishing tools for being able to insert links, embed videos and pictures, and do more advanced text formatting that the simple status update feature doesn't have.
The discussions threads section also includes a view counter, for you to gage how many readers are coming through to read your discussions. Posting in the discussion threads also gives each discussion a unique page URL, for sharing onto other social media sites, and will also appear on the global timeline (The Prominade) and your profile activity log, with links to the discussion.
With a little training, this Network is set up in a way to stay organized as best as it can, so we don't have to rely on search engines or algorythms to drive the content for us.
Anytime you want to post a new discussion, either visit the Discussion Threads link listed under the Community Dashboard tab in main site navigation bar, or in the Add Content dashboard on your profile (refer to image below)
Try it out here - > https://djeministudios.com/community-articles/article/new