The first half of his article can be summed up quickly: hot summer ahead, be calm, don’t be a hysterical hysteric, one hot summer doesn’t mean anything, just about everyone agrees Earth has been warming for a long time, 19 of our last 25 summers have had higher-than-average temperatures, most climate scientists believe man-made greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are at fault, but there’s much we don’t know e.g. about clouds, the orbit of the Earth.
So, can you calmly make sense of it all? I can’t either.
Then, and I can't explain it, after telling us to calm down he gets all hysterical on us.
“Regardless (i.e. man is at fault, maybe clouds), conserving energy and finding ways to wean ourselves off fossil fuels is sound public policy. It’s good for the environment, global security and, as today’s sky-rocketing energy prices indicate, the status quo isn’t an option.”
Good conclusion. Really.
And if it was me, I would have ended there, put away the laptop and opened a cold beverage.
But from somewhere inside Mr. Goldstein’s head the following thought popped out:
“That said (i.e. that good stuff about conservation and weaning off fossil fuels), it would be foolish and dangerous to tear our country apart by recklessly punishing, say, Alberta for developing the oilsands, which are contributing to our nation’s wealth... "
"Rather, we must approach the issue of global warming with good judgment and common sense and not be panicked into reckless decisions by the doomsayers.”
["I'm the Doomsayer and I say doom. A big doom." Click here for context]
What the heck?
Who is being foolish and dangerous? The senior climatologist he quoted about the 19 hot summers? The ruling Conservatives?
Who is tearing the country apart and getting all reckless on Alberta’s head? The dreaded, entirely reckless doomsayers?
And he talks about using common sense yet puts wealth above our health and the environment?
Mr. Goldstein, you’re starting to sound hysterical, maybe even reckless in your talk.
Calm down. Relax.
[Click here to read another Letter to the Editor: Liberals, you got some ‘splainin’ to do]
.
2 comments:
The problem for Mr. Goldstein is that he doesn't have a clue about the topic over which he is ranting. He is an ideological denier rather than a scientific denier. There is a difference.
A denier who rejects that climate change is real and is happening due to human activities on the basis of science, can, presumably, be persuaded otherwise with additional scientific evidence. An ideological denier, such as Mr. Goldstein, will never be persuaded because it runs counter to his ideological world view.
As evidence that Mr. Goldstein does not understand his topic, I point to his argument over weather. Climate and weather are two different things although the ideological deniers can't seem to separate them.
A very good analogy I recently read is to think of climate as a marble in a bowl rolling down one side and up the other and repeating. And imagine the speed and energy of the bowl is increasing and the marble climbs higher up each side of the bowl each time coming closer and closer to the edge.
When we speak of weather we tend to think in terms of averages - average temperature, average rain fall, etc ... but it is the extremes that form those averages we need to think about.
So, for example, we may get the same average rain fall in a year, but we may get it all at once. We may get the same number of storms, but they will be more intense. We may get the same average temperature, but we will have periods of extreme heat and extreme cold.
In other words, it is the height the marble climbs the side of the bowl we ought to be concerned with and not where it passes at the bottom of the bowl.
And of course, there is the question of what happens when the speed and energy of the marble is enough to cause it to fly out.
As much as I appreciate your efforts to persuade ideological dinosaurs such as Goldstein, your efforts are wasted. He can't and won't be persuaded and neither will those who turn to his words for reinforcement of their own ideological slants.
For those who do and can follow the science and for whom debate and knowledge is critical to learning and understanding rather than defending a dogmatic position, it is important we move past the endless nonsense of deniers like Goldstein as it detracts us from the serious work that needs to be done.
For those who recognize the reality of climate change, as well as energy depletion, we need to learn how to clothe, house, and feed ourselves in a world where we no longer can take for granted today's conveniences.
As for Lorrie Goldstein, well, he can eat his words.
thank you for your very informative comment, sean.
I thought LG's article was confusing and said as much. In his second response to me he warns me not to lecture - then lectures me.
It's an interesting back and forth and I'll pursue it for another round or two.
thanks again for your interest.
gah
Post a Comment