There’s a lot of misinformation on the issue of climate change, often created by a desired belief, that leads to a pattern of constant advocacy for any argument that seemingly refutes climate change as a significant issue, and simultaneously reinforces its own patterns.
At the same time, the issue of long term geologically radical atmospheric alteration – from which climate change stems – cries out for sensible assessment, discussion, and mitigation or ameloriation.
Unfortunately, a lot of the effort that could be put into assessing various strategies for maximizing the efficiency and choice respecting potential of various mitigation avenues, has, instead, been put into trying to refute the basic phenomenon of climate change itself. This has led to a lot of misinformation and misconstruction on the issue, as well as a lot of over the top stereotyping.
Unfortunately, this in turn has led to more frustration on the part of the many people who care greatly about the issue of climate change and are concerned over the risk ranges it presents – for both present, but in particular future generations- and disproportinately the world’s poor, who will have far less opportunity to adapt.
And thus, as a result,sometimes leads to responses on the part of some that only further feeds many of the stereotypes already serving as excuse to dismiss all sensible and even “even keeled” assessment of the issue as “catastrophic doom and gloom alarmism,” when the latter is just a phrase, that has no relevance to the specific issue or attendant risk ranges of climatic shifting.
This site constitutes a unique effort to assess the issue from a broad based perspective, and offer information and analysis not always offered elsewhere; on the issue itself, many of the bigger picture questions and patterns surrouding it, and on ways to help close the gap between objecvtive assessment of the issue and belief led advocacy, seeking to mute any response to it.
Unfortunately, helping to lessen that gap is difficult because climate change “skepticism,” for many, has reached a sort of self perpetuating point where no matter how logical a response is given, a way is found to re-categorize that response in a manner that further supports climate change skepticism in the first place – and the advocacy stimulates a lot of ogical sounding misinformation. Castigating, dismissing, or even illuminating that misinformation, then in turn often leads to more climate change skepticism belief reinforcement through cries of “stifling debate,” or “silencing disparate views,” when it is nothing of the sort.
This process, or pattern, in turn, is not being sufficiently illuminated. And when the media (and many climate change leaders) do vaguely dance with the issue, it tends to be along the lines of presuming that everybody has the same overall knowledge base or perceptions, and thus only tends to reinforce the original patterns and in particular stereotypes and generalizations being ascribed in the first place.
In other words, ponting out as if accepted groupthink, that climate change “denialism” (an iffy word to be using for so complex an issue, no matter how belief driven and basic issue misconstrucing classic climate change skepticism tends to be), exists and is done as purposeful deceit, and “everybody” knows this as well as what climate change really is, only further reinforces the perspective of climate change “doubters” that they are being told what to think, rather than shown.
This is not what is happening. But it is the impression that’s sometimes being left. And also of course reinforced by the fact that climate change “skeptics”want to believe it, as it reinforces their beliefs that climate change is some sort of doctrinal groupthink, rather than a slow, conservative conclusion arrived at in overwhelming and convergent consensus by many thousands of actual climate scientists professionally studying the issue around the world, over decades of learning.
In the meantime, the pattern of misinformation and the forces driving it, as well as many of the bigger picture fundamentals of what climate change really is, are often left obscured, or underestimated.
Those challenges notwithstanding, the main purpose of this site is to help provide more information on the subject, including sensible ideas for redress in ways consistent with the lowest possible political implication.
So this site, sometimes far more simply, sometimes not so, also looks at the issue of sensible redress, with a degree of sensitivity toward various political concerns and views in order to focus on what the issue really is: Improving our world, and protecting the inherent rights of the poor, of our progeny, of our future generations, of inherent liberty and choice, not inadvertently harming it as a result of the very efforts to “improve it” in the first place – which is ultimately what economy and growth is.
My work has been predominantly on studying broad sociological trends, in terms of both health and climate science impact. My first book in this topic area, assessing both of these together and drawing a rather interesting and simple parallel to how we’ve treated both subjects, is to be published in summer, 2016.