The Opposition

I feel like I have a less negative view of opponents to climate change than most. This is not to say that I'm tickled pink when someone interrupts me with a blanket "climate change is a myth" statement, but I do think that opponents to climate change have legitimate reasons to be defensive, that they have considerable scientific objections, and that opposition ultimately helps us (the good guys) form a better platform.

As "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" (the academic and stronger of the two websites) indicates, there are too many arguments against climate change (which reflects the complex arguments behind climate change). Nonetheless we have to acknowledge the position they have been put in (let's say politically since there are many ways to view it). This issue is a relatively recent political issue if you count its origins in the 1970s. Unlike ozone depletion, climate change puts the blame on varied parties: from individuals to governments, from industries to the planet as a whole. Of the climate change blamees, it seems that industry gets the worst rap, and it is no coincidence that those outspokenly opposing climate change often have some tie to industry. In the early stages of the movement the science was still being worked out and people were still making up their minds, however as the movement strengthened, policies were implemented. These policies were hard law and required change in action that directly affected the livelihoods of many citizens and entities. As the opposition grew, the animosity between the two groups made reconciliation or middle ground almost impossible. If I were on the other side of this, I sure as heck would be frustrated with the alarmists who are convincing important policy makers to make pivotal decisions on something I believe to be an exaggeration.

As a supporter of climate change action, it's easy to write opposition off as stupid and untrue. After examining the two websites it's striking how people can manipulate what we assume to be "hard facts" to their advantage. When I watched An Inconvenient Truth, I was frustrated by the fact that the man who ran for president didn't label his graph axes. Not to say that he made up the information, but it reminds me that it can happen both ways. I need to be equally weary of sources that tell me what I want to hear as I must be with those that don't. Thus we should make sense of and evaluate them equally. Teachers, especially historians, are often telling us to not ignore something that doesn't fit into our thesis, but rather find its significance and adjust our thesis accordingly. People, myself especially, are so set on keeping our beliefs simple that we have a tendency to be blasé about what we don't understand. Regardless of who's right or wrong, we're both working with science. The result of listening to the opposition is a much clearer understanding of what we as individuals (and on larger levels) believe in.