At least nobody from those who engage in the debate.. Even those who advocate for the cause seem to have been lost in the fog of their own arguments. Over the past years of this troublesome quarrel, scientists, businessmen, politicians and activists have struggled to gain an edge over each other's position but with little to no luck.
A lot of arguments have been thrown onto the table and it seems that most people agree that there is a form of climate change occurring. Now, I am not going to copy-paste the arguments here. This is google's job and certainly not my intention. Let's bear in mind something important before we start. Truth is never democratic but all decisions about this matter, whether pro or against, seem to be relying on a consensus.
Very few actions have been taken in defense of the cause against global warming. Even the ones who claim that something should be done have done next to nothing. Even worse, a lot of lies and myths have been injected into the argument in a desperate attempt to push certain policies forward. As I examine below the root cause of the problem is the form of enquiry and not the issue itself.
The Legacy
The subject of global warming re-emerged once again right after Trump was nominated president. Almost instantaneously the "science front", traditionally supported from liberal politicians, rushed to scorn Trump for his disbelief in climate change. Now, there is nothing wrong in accusing a politician about their belief in something especially when data is ignored. Thing is, the only difference of Trump and Obama on the subject was that the fact that the first was honest, avoiding sensationalist nonsense in his narrative.8 years of Obama and liberal legislations demonstrated that politics have nothing to do with climate change. Obama ruled the planet for almost a decade and the Kyoto Treaty failed miserably. How can one newly elected president do anything when the most outspoken liberal democrat bowed to the same status quo about the issue? Trump is honest on the matter. He simply doesn't buy the problem as it has been presented. Obama on the other hand never walked the talk even if he claims to be fighting global warming.
Ambiguous Science
The scientists that claim that humans cause climate change, don't treat the situation objectively. Although there is evidence that anthropogenic factors do cause part of the problem, there is absolutely no evidence that going the opposite way or even stop doing what we are doing, will reverse the situation. People picture climate change like a Walt Disney cartoon where once we stop the "evil force" the good one will shine. This stance is both juvenile and dangerous and this is why even scientists engaging in this debate do not take each other seriously.Missing the Point
A business man tends to see opportunities when problems are presented. A scientist on the other fact, due to the methodology and funding, will most likely be locked in an anxious close-minded scientific ritual, chasing correlations on SPSS begging for peanuts from some government grant to keep his practice in play. Usually, when it comes to scientific research people do not dare to pull out once they are in it too deep. The investment is too great to jeopardize the whole line of research and one would not want to render all past work useless. While there are billions of dollars thrown in finding statistical correlations about how the planet is boiling up, only a fraction is dedicated in researching ways to make the problem, aka CO2 into an energy solution. Remember, most government-funded science is there for making policies, not contributing towards innovation.Intellectual Hubris
We are wasting valuable time, energy and resources trying to tackle a massive issue on a global scale. It might sound elegant to try to save the planet, but in reality we are looking after our own asses, our economies, our nation. The idea of "saving the planet" belongs to the realm of science fiction. If climate changes indeed, it would be wiser to regulate specific closed ecosystems like those of cities. The projects can be planned properly and be economically feasible. Geoenginnering the entire planet is ludicrous and sadly those who advocate science and objective reasoning the most, tend to push this absurdity to the public.I don't pretend to be a geologist or an environmental specialist. What I do know is that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The claims that can be asserted with no evidence can be dismissed just as easy. Before we even dare to think about science and policy we need to evaluate if our initial argument is valid. One can have the best tools in their garage with the most accurate diagrams and still be able to destroy the entire house, trying to fix a car. The climate changes. Those who survive are not the ones who fight change but those who are most adoptable to it.
