Author Topic: Climate Change Denial-A different Take  (Read 27 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ken Gigliotti

  • Retired Professional
  • Posts: 278
      • Email
Climate Change Denial-A different Take
« on: January 10, 2018, 12:02 PM »
Climate Change Denial-A Different Take
People say the strangest things to photographers. It might have something to do with the soul stealing aspect of the photograph. If that were true I have likely deleted more souls in the last 30 years than anyone has right to.

I was once on a plane with a climate scientist flying north when I asked him point blank, “Is it too late for man?” He answered quickly and directly, “Yes.” He then said as a qualifier that the planet has survived many catastrophic events in it's past , the planet will survive, people not so much. The surprising thing for his and others research was that there was very little “old ice” in the Arctic , new ice forms every year but  old ice that should never melt is no longer present.
 
With  this conversation in mind the media arguments  regarding climate change and it's scientific supporters and so called unscientific  supporters rages on. The language and tone of media reports I notice have subtle language at the end, usually in a voice of doom that trails off  after a positive lead.It is a dance.

Will humans survive? Will the planet survive? The positive language often supports the planet, but warns of dire, and grave consequences if certain things are not done. One source said the next 75 years are critical in a worldwide effort. Critical. Critical means that both deniers and supporters are saying the same thing.
 Is climate change reversible, will the ice caps refreeze and will the polar bears be saved. The answer seems to be no to the ice caps. Yes to rising sea levels and destructive climatic events, fire, flood and drought.
Television usually flips to polar bears on clean white snow to reinforce the idea that   climate change is reversible although that is never stated. No one want to be a kill joy. Manitoban's and I have a special affection for polar bears and an aversion to BS.

The argument on both sides is flawed. If the right questions are asked, a proper action can be taken. Bad questions that simply create controversy, heat but no light add to the warming of the planet.

Is it too late for man? No one knows the future because a few things are in play. Cooperation on a world wide stage,new technology, likelihood of war. There will likely be less sunlight in the near future. Water will flow ,fires will burn ,land will slide. Here and everywhere.Bad things have alreday happened,the polar caps are melting and breaking up.

If the deniers are simply saying it cannot be changed, and the supporter are presenting a flawed argument that will (1) create good controversy in media, (2) further divide the left now far left and now far right and nothing will get done but increase ratings. (3) blurry arguments and selective science will cause the public to be confused and distrust both sides. This is happening now. (4) The very pressing likelihood is before climate change comes to a sad end game , war would have already sealed the deal.

One of the biggest problems for the public is that the middle has disappeared from all meaningful reporting. There is too much distrust and much lies at the foot of mainstream media refusing to define the climate issue in other than political terms.

People fear war more than climate change and they should. Lets see better information on the news. Seventy five years is not long,which means the likelihood of war is much closer. Check out food price insurrections and how the world is becoming more and more unstable. Opinion by Ken Gigliotti
I told several people in different media about my conversation, it seems no one wants to the only one  quoted about the “too late for man,”thing.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 04:42 PM by Ken Gigliotti »