, , ,

Wallow in the political slop of bad science and misunderstanding all you want, it does not change the fact that when you refuse to listen to climate facts, you are disagreeing with 98% of climate scientists. We have been aware of the effects of human industrialization on our climate for over 40 years; it is not a matter of belief. I am not saying that you should just agree with anything that experts say, but most people “skeptical” about climate change are motivated by political ideologies, and not science. Would you take medicine that was refuted by 98% of doctors? Would you drive on a bridge that was deemed faulty by 98% of engineers?

As a side note, stop calling climate deniers “skeptics”. Skeptics are those who withhold judgment until they can review the credible evidence according to rational scientific principles, not cynical curmudgeons that are the wet blanket to any claim.  Climate “skeptics” disagree with all of the available evidence and scientific foundations, and that is the hallmark of uncritical thinking. What it means to be a skeptic is a lot more nuanced than just disagreeing with everything.

And another thing: why is caring about the environment and our effects on it a political issue? How could saving the planet from a pollutant spewing industrialization of continents possibly be relegated to Republican or Democrat? I imagine that if steps toward reversing climate change cost less money, politics would have less of an influence. But really, it is completely obvious that humans have changed the climate. Humans are at the point where we can literally move mountains, literally alter the Earth around our goals; how could one be so shortsighted as to not see the effects of, for example, belching billions of tons of a green-house gas into the atmosphere? Climate change is perhaps the largest challenge that our entire species has ever had to handle, and it should be handled not by politicians, not by lobbyists, but by humans.

Oh yeah, and that whole “Climate gate” thing? You mean those emails that were meant to be personal correspondence between friends, discussing data and findings with the suitable jargon and humor? Yeah, there was absolutely nothing shady about that. I can prove it…

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. officials on Thursday cleared scientists of charges that they manipulated data about climate change in e-mails that were stolen from a British university in 2009, triggering a climate scandal.

The Department of Commerce’s Inspector General conducted the independent review of e-mails taken from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England, at the request of Republican Senator James Inhofe, a climate change “skeptic”. The e-mails included exchanges between researchers at the university and many of the world’s top climate scientists, including employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an office of the Commerce Department.

Some of the more than 1,000 CRU e-mails had appeared to show scientists blasting climate change skeptics and trying to block publication of certain articles.

But the review said it found no data manipulation or inappropriate procedures by NOAA scientists.

“In our review of the CRU e-mails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data … or failed to adhere to appropriate peer reviewed procedures,” the Inspector General wrote in a letter to Inhofe. Several British reviews of the matter have exonerated the climate scientists of trying to manipulate data.

There is no longer any reason to be “skeptical” of climate change. We have the data, we have the tools, we have the science, but we do not have the will. If I have to be called a Democrat because I want to save our planet and our species (and every other species), so be it.