A key feature of the climate debate in the mainstream narrative is that the full context is not taken into account. The presentation of facts is far from complete. If you are interested in finding out what is true and what is false, or if you are interested in arriving at the best decision about any issue, you MUST take into account the full context for the issue under consideration.
What do I mean by the full context? Well, there are several points to consider. firstly it is necessary to consider all of the pros and all of the cons and the magnitude of each honestly and accurately. Secondly, we have to examine all the premises with which we start. This means unpacking all of the assumed truths, the given ‘desirables’ that we take for granted.
Ideas are rarely presented in isolation. They usually come in bundles with other ideas either presupposed or implied along with the idea being proposed. If we are unaware of this then we can easily fail to spot ideas that are smuggled into our minds without our knowing that we are accepting them as true.
For example, the climate debate presupposes ideas rooted in environmentalism, most notably the idea that the standard of good in the debate is an untouched planet, one in which human impact is minimised. It assumes that the natural world is pristine complete and perfect and that we humans spoil it with our activity. It is a “dont walk on the grass” approach to managing the environment. But where is the consideration of human flourishment in this model?
It also presupposes that more CO2 in the atmosphere is harmful, that any increase in average global temperatures is harmful, and that an increase of more than a very small amount will be catastrophic. But you will doubtless be surprised to find out that none of these is true. For example, it is known that in th epast the planet has been much warmer than it is today, and we are all still here. It is also known that in the past there have been much higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 than we have today, and we are all still here – including the polar bears.
Alex Epstein describes the mainstream narrative as biased, sloppy and anti-human. In the video above he clearly explains why. This means that the vast majority of well-intentioned people are misinformed and acting on false premises. The crowds of climate change demonstrators are calling for unspecified government action in the form of more regulations and championing a goal of reducing energy consumption by enormous amounts in ignorance of the consequences.
You have heard all the scare mongering and the anti CO2 argument. Now nvail yourself to the other side of the argument, the one for CO2 by watching these videos. The one above and also those below. And then you decide. Do not take my word for it, or anyone else’s. Use your own judgment.
Be informed. You CAN know the truth.
Nigel Howitt, Czech Republic