Sign up for an invite
Brian Gordon: I just don't get it, Part 1
Written by Brian Gordon 
Brian Gordon is a Canadian Green Party member and candidate trained by Al Gore to present An Inconvenient Truth.
I used to be a climate sceptic, so I understand where people are coming from.
Photo:
Image via Flickr
That much, I get. What I don't get is why some sceptics don't believe the science. They seem to fall into two categories:
- The science is not certain.
- This whole global warming thing is a conspiracy to impose a socialist world government.
Today, let's deal with #1. Tomorrow, after I stop laughing, we can deal with #2 - which would be a lot funnier if people like Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper didn't believe it.
Science...is never certain. Gravity is pretty definite, mind you, but most other things are not so settled. Pretty much everyone except a few quacks now agree that smoking greatly increases your risk of getting cancer. Not in everyone, of course; we all know someone who smoked until the age of 99 and then got hit by a bus. But generally, we know that smoking is like playing Russian Roulette on a longer time scale. But imagine if you waited for certainty - if your doctor warned you to quit smoking, and you replied, Hey doc, I'll quit when I know smoking is going to give me cancer - well, that would be just stupid, wouldn't it?
Perhaps you don't care about yourself; you like smoking and are willing to take your chances with cancer. Suppose the doctor told you that your smoking was greatly increasing the risk of asthma in your young children? Anyone who wouldn't quit upon hearing this, well, I don't want to listen to.
So now we come to global warming. There are an awful lot of scientists who say that the odds are greater than 90% that humans are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate change, which is going to be very, very bad for humanity. Thousands of scientists, in fact, from dozens of countries and hundreds of institutions from universities to NASA. And the national science academies from most countries, including Canada and the U.S.
So my question is, how much certainty is enough for you? Do you wait until the doctor tells you that you have cancer? That it has metastasized throughout your body? That you have weeks to live? When is enough for you? When you're lying in a hospital bed, half your healthy weight, tubes running in-and-out of you everywhere? When the priest is giving you last rites?
The same reasoning applies to the climate. If you wait until there is absolutely no doubt that you have cancer/that global warming is real, it is too late.
The doctors are telling us that we have a problem. In this case, we've already got cancer; now it's just a question of whether we can change in time to save ourselves and our children.
If you want to keep up with Brian's adventures in the Green Party, why not subcribe to our RSS feed? We'll even give you a free album.
License:
Attribution-Share Alike 
Paul Hwang (not verified) says:
The rigid mentality of your smoking commentary almost had me skipping over the rest altogether. I make sure the only risk I impose on others when I smoke is the risk of eating a snarky retort if I'm told to step a few more feet away from a Starbucks when I'm on my work breaks.
That said, I'm glad I read on. I liked the rest of the article, it submits your arguments crisply and on-point. There are just a few things I have to say, as a fellow skeptic-turned-believer:
-One, An Inconvenient Truth is great for the ones that supported preventative action from the beginning, as well the open-minded who didn't take sides early. But for those that start far on the other side of the fence, it's a pretty distasteful piece of work and leaves a terrible first impression. Al Gore's delivery is an exercise in self-service. And no matter how good the arguments in the film were, you can't help but noticed they're all framed as if written by a man still trying to gain voters. Hell, I'd vote for him, but I don't think I'll ever like the guy.
-Two, there's a long line of stoics (and the odd nihilist) who acknowledge global warming but can't see their time being applied to this extremely slow-moving crisis, when there are all these mini-crises that affect them and their loved ones more immediately. I have at least one of my feet firmly planted in this school of thought. There are other reasons for such complacency. From my experience they range from faith in the flexibility of humanity on the bright side, and on the more jaded side, predictions that we'll consume the last of our nonrenewable resources before we can bat an eye at climate change. Which is what brings me to point number
-Three, and I hope you don't take this personally, but one of the biggest problems with the Green Party in America (In Canada? I wouldn't know) has been that their most visible members don't seem to make any attempt to "get it." Villifying those that aren't eagerly nodding along isn't helpful; it partially accounts for why, in your own words, "sceptics don't believe the science." Even when you're right, (and I do believe you are right) it isn't savvy to corner all the others and smacking them upside the head with a hot kettle full of "I'm right, asshole!" It's why the Green Party candidates keep scratching their heads as to why they don't get more votes, and I've seen the same unsavory mannerisms trickle down to every single Green Party "street team" I have run into thus far. (Again, I'm not speaking for Canada. Please don't take these statements as a potshot against the Canadian Green Party, which I know nothing about other than name and address)
While it might be frustrating to think people are divided on climate change simply based on poor human relations and political tribalism, it isn't too hard to believe, is it? And while letting that exasperated sigh out and making angry, rhetorical supplications unto ye gods is easy, not to mention very damn therapeutic, it just turns into more fuel for the fire if not handled with tact and delicacy.