So I was at a friends place yesterday and in the conversation I ended up mentioning my concerns about climate change. I had no idea what my friends position was, or his fiancées for that matter, but the comment was more in the context of listing a number of global concerns (religious fanaticism, economic instability, etc...). I was not intending to start a debate on climate change, but intentions rarely matter when talking about these sorts of subjects. The reply I received from my friends fiancée was along the lines of:
"If you believe everything the media tells you about global warming...".
This caught me off guard. I had a tough time understanding why an educated friend of mine would say such a thing. So naturally I began to ask questions to try to figure out where this belief was coming from. Points such as Al Gores personal motivations and actions as well as 'global warming is just an opinion' came sailing out in full force. Long story short, before I was able to get to the scientific evidence of the matter at hand and discovering which evidence was unconvincing to her, I was told "I don't want to debate this topic on a Friday evening after a long week at work". Huh? Then why say anything to begin with when I mentioned climate change? It's like a friend saying to me "I have Jesus to thank for all my success" and as an Atheist replying "You know there's no god right?".
Clearly by what was said I know that my friend is a Theist and everyone knows that religion (like climate change) is a topic ripe for debate. So why would I say something to provoke a response only to shut down the discussion when it came turn to elucidate my position? I have no issue with someone disagreeing with me, but I also have no issue with taking responsibility for what I say and backing it up with what I have learned and experienced in order to come to my conclusions (no matter what day of the week it is). I may be wrong on climate change, but it seems to me the only way to find that out is to exchange ideas, check facts and let the preponderance of the evidence win. It frustrates me when people stir the pot and then leave the kitchen. Is that unreasonable? P.S. If you want to know where I am coming from, take a look
here.
Clearly by what was said I know that my friend is a Theist and everyone knows that religion (like climate change) is a topic ripe for debate. So why would I say something to provoke a response only to shut down the discussion when it came turn to elucidate my position? I have no issue with someone disagreeing with me, but I also have no issue with taking responsibility for what I say and backing it up with what I have learned and experienced in order to come to my conclusions (no matter what day of the week it is). I may be wrong on climate change, but it seems to me the only way to find that out is to exchange ideas, check facts and let the preponderance of the evidence win. It frustrates me when people stir the pot and then leave the kitchen. Is that unreasonable? P.S. If you want to know where I am coming from, take a look here.
2 comments:
Yes, global warming is real, caused by man, and occurring, and it will get progressively stronger.
But if you look at the predictions, including the IPCC report itself, you'll find that even its worst case scenarios are not a significant problem for the US and Europe.
Read the book 'Six Degrees' then see if you still agree with your comment. By this statement you are also implying that the only concerns on this planet are the well being of the US and Europe. Despite the fact that they will likely be significantly affected, I don't think that even if they were to be reasonably safe over the next 200 years that that would justify letting the rest of the world suffer and countless numbers of species go extinct.
Post a Comment