I have no special knowledge of science - I think I got a "C" in college Biology. So please don't mistake this blog as some sort of expert commentary on Global Warming. Oops, sorry - Climate Change.
Without any special knowledge of Geology, Astronomy, Meteorology, or any other -ology, here's where my garden variety common sense leads me.
The earth is over 2/3 ocean, right? Of the 1/3 that is land, most is uninhabitable. Of the land that is inhabitable only a fraction of that is actually populated by human beings (most estimates fall between 4 and 10 percent of the earth's surface).
Now of that small number, a tiny minority constitutes "developed countries" - those who consume plastic goods, use hairspray, and drive SUV's. It seems to me that if that itty bitty speck of humanity proactively tried their best to affect the earth's ecosystem - well - I don't understand how that could be possible. Especially in the relatively short time that we've even existed, let alone been consumers of fluorocarbons and gas-guzzling vehicles. How could we possibly offset the power of all the ancient, immense forces of the universe - including the massive star at the center of our solar system that
has a surface temperature of about 5,510 °C, which adheres to rhythms and seasons
of its own? Again,
garden-variety common sense tells me that this massive, fiery ball has a
heck of a lot more to say about the temperature trends of our planet than who
drives a Ford Escalade or uses Suave hairspray.
I'm not saying it's impossible that we few, tiny creatures are taking on these forces of God and nature and winning; but when something defies common sense to such a staggering degree the burden of proof becomes that much higher, and I'm just not seeing it. In fact it seems that whenever someone raises these questions, rather than receiving an intelligent response they are met with vicious ad hominem attacks and immediate ejection from the public square.
Thinking through this has led me to the epiphany that it's not "saving the planet" that's the agenda of most environmentalists. If it were, reaction to the recent debunking of the global warming data would have been met with celebration in the streets: "This is the best possible news! After all the frightening predictions it turns out that industrialized nations are in fact not destroying the planet!" They'd get to work filling children's heads with hope and inspiration instead of fear and dread. The fact that these groups are willfully ignoring the data and doubling down with religious fervor tells me it's about something else entirely. Whether it's that people need something to believe in and feel pious about, or that Eco-business has just become too big to fail, I don't know. What I do know is that truth nearly always (save quantum mechanics) aligns with good common sense. If it doesn't, the rational response is to question the narrative.
Perhaps Carl Sagan said it best:
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge - even to ourselves - that we've been so credulous. So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise."
History really does seem to repeat itself, doesn't it?