Climate change
What's the motivation?
The problem
Every day we see more information on the issue of climate change, from both supporters of the idea that climate is changing and from those that deny that the climate is changing. Who should we believe? I think the answer to this question is very easy to understand. But, before I answer it let us define what we are specifically talking about.
Climate change
This is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period (i.e., decades to millions of years). Climate change may refer to a change in average weather conditions, or in the time variation of weather around longer-term average conditions (i.e., more or fewer extreme weather events).
Climate change denial
Sometimes referred to as: global warming denial. This idea involves the dismissal or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming. It also refutes the degree to which global warming is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts.
Human influenced climate change
In the context of climate variation, anthropogenic factors are human activities which affect the climate. The scientific consensus on climate change is that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities.
Regular climate oscillation
Sometimes known as the climate cycle, is any recurring cyclical oscillation within global or regional climate, and is a type of climate pattern. These fluctuations in atmospheric temperature, sea surface temperature, precipitation or other parameters can be quasi-periodic, often occurring on inter-annual, multi-annual, decadal, multidecadal, century-wide, millennial or longer timescales. They are not perfectly periodic.
What we really know
In a study published on the 15th of May 2013 entitled: “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”, 97.1% of peer-reviewed scientific literature supported the idea that human activity (anthropogenic) is responsible for global warming. scientific consensus is something very difficult to attain. When we see that 97.1% of peer-reviewed scientific literature is in support of a scientific idea, it is very reasonable to site that we have scientific consensus. This means that it is extremely likely we (Homo sapiens) are causing global warming.
The scientific papers, in the above study, looked at all available data relating to climate change. They factored in regular climate oscillation and non-human influences on climate change. The result of the consensus study is a very strong indicator that we (Homo sapiens) are causing global warming.
So why believe anything else?
There is simply only one reason for believing that we are not responsible for climate change. That reason is greed.
American Republicans, who elected President number 45 to office are highly correlated to denying that climate is changing. And even, the very small portion of American Republicans, that do agree climate is changing, deny that humans are responsible for it.
Why are American Republicans so opposed to the scientific consensus that we (Homo sapiens) are causing global warming?
American Republicans are driven by greed and self-interest above all else. This makes American Republicans the most anti-social group that have ever existed in the brief history of Homo sapiens. The ideology of greed and self-interest explains why American Republicans are against any, and all, forms of social reforms.
The motivation
Given the motivation of American Republican's greed and self-interest, it is easy to determine why they choose to ignore the scientific consensus that we (Homo sapiens) are causing global warming.
For an example of this American Republican greed and self-interest let's look at ExxonMobil.
From the late 1970s and through the 1980s, Exxon funded internal and university collaborations which, where broadly in line with the developing public scientific approach. They even developed a reputation for expertise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Between the 1970s and 2015, Exxon and ExxonMobil researchers and academic collaborators published dozens of research papers generally supporting the emerging consensus that fossil fuel emissions could pose risks for society and exploring the extent of these risks.
However, more recently ExxonMobil engaged in research, lobbying, advertising, and grant making, some of which were conducted with the purpose of delaying widespread acceptance and action on global warming.
It is as plain as the nose on your face why fossil fuel companies would not support the 97.1% of peer-reviewed scientific literature that supports the notion we (Homo sapiens) are causing global warming. They hold to the same ideology as American Republican's greed and self-interest.
On the other hand, what is the motivation of those that support the idea that we (Homo sapiens) are causing global warming? One could argue that scientists and researchers have an income to protect and so they might be motivated to fabricate date to support their livelihoods. This is indeed a possibility, but given that 97.1% of peer-reviewed scientific literature supports the idea that human activity is responsible for global warming, it seems highly unlikely that so many scientists would risk their careers on fabricated data.
American Republicans have children and grandchildren too. If they do not change their ideology they will doom their own children and grandchildren to a world that is not habitable by Homo sapiens.
So, what if we are wrong?
If the scientific consensus is in error what do we have to lose by investing our resources, ingenuity, and industry into the development of a completely renewable based energy system. As a global species, we have nothing to lose, but American Republicans have everything, all their greed and self-interest, to lose.
I say, let's get rid of the American Republicans and go with a clean energy future.
State of Denial (2017)