Yes, Time to the Nay-Sayers Too

The evidence for global environmental change is overwhelming. Doesn't matter which corner of the world you visit, which institution you query, the message is the same.  Yet there are nay-sayers who practice a very skilled art of denial.  Their motivations vary but their intent is the same: to downplay the significance of humanity's collective impact on planetary systems, and to confuse the issue as much and as often as possible so there can be no comprehensive societal response. Such a response would, by its very nature, restructure global social, political and economic institudions, placing in jeopardy the comfortable status or beliefs the nay-sayers enjoy.  A fine example of this maddening manipulation of the agenda can be seen in the following YouTube video, characterizing the environmental movement as part of the neo-communist agenda, and climate change science as 'discredited'.

Truth is, top flight scientific organizations the world over affirm the trend (despite these trends varying a bit depending on the kind of model one views or the quantity and timeliness of data): The planet is at a turning point. Political decisions made over the next 15 years will determine whether we head off the worst effects of global change, or whether we slide into the ever-accelerating economic and environmental chaos that has been foretold.

Though the information presented in this blog is clearly one sided, it's my belief that the nay-sayers deserve to be heard too. There is no effort here to screen out conservative business-as-usual appeals, right wing interpretations of the science, or mindless will-of-god type protestations. Those views will eventually prove themselves foolish and irresponsible if not a dangerous distraction from critical needs.

At the very end of the book Illusions author Richard Bach offers this warning -- 'Everything in this book may be wrong.'  His point being that readers should judge for themselves how the world works and why. Whether his themes are right or wrong will become apparent if the reader makes an effort to know.

We propose the same warning here:  Readers, we hope everything in this blog is wrong!  We hope that the data and the trends are in error, and that we are not falliing head first into an unknown, unstable future.  We hope that the nay-sayers are right (okay, except the part about 'red' environmentalism).

Last week David Mitchell solved the environment - and he's a bit miffed that didn't make more of a stir. So this week he thought he'd tackle climate change doubters. These disbelievers must concede that climate change is a 'possibility'. In which case, why take the risk – and continue ruining the planet, in the meantime?

Nay-sayers, we invite you to say on.  Only try to bring a hint of responsibility to the denials.  Try to depend less on smoke screens and deliberate misinformation.  In the mean time mindful ones will continue to look and listen, to scrutinize, inquire and contemplate the bigger picture. They will make an effort to really know.

The evidence presented here is, well, right in front of all our eyes.