1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Climate Change? Nahhh ...

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Riptide, Oct 23, 2015.

  1. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I think his play was of the "If everything is __________ then nothing is" variety.
     
    Azrael likes this.
  2. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Because you say it is? What’s the difference between those examples and climate change?
     
    dixiehack and Mngwa like this.
  3. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    I know. Second time Az has played it, too.
     
  4. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    And that's fine. We're all* friendly here. And he's not entirely off-base. But the reaction of an otherwise irreligious climatarian (just made that up) to the suggestion that he/she/they has/have become communicants in a religion is kind of amusing.


    *Well, maybe not "all"!
     
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I think "It's religion" is a way to be dismissive of something when the factual discussion doesn't align with an alternative reality someone is clinging to.

    That is because religion is the antithesis of science.

    You can point to some fringe person who said something that is questionable and then be dismissive of the whole discussion. Like someone said, "we're a handful of decades away from an uninhabitable planet" . ... therefore, "climate change is a religion."

    The thing is, actual climate change and its effects are observable and measurable. Which is everything religion isn't. I honestly can't think of a dumber word to use in association with it than "religion," other than to try to tweak people on a message board or to derail a conversation about what we empirically know, how much risk was have put ourselves in, and the pros and cons of taking various actions to try to mitigate those risks.

    Name any theological religion. It has someone telling people to "believe" things that they can't empirically see or that actually fly in the face of all of their experiences in the world. I don't have to look for the one person saying something on the outside of the religion to dismiss the whole religion as unscientific. I can just go to the mainstream religion itself. ... and there is nothing scientific about it.

    Climate change, though? Empirically we can be very reasonably certain that: 1) The earth's climate has been warming over decades, 2) man-made CO2, mainly through the burning of fossil fuels, is a major cause of it. 3) Warmer temperatures over time are changing weather patterns and it is disrupting the balance of nature that has made the planet inhabitable for humans. 4) This is posing many risks to the planet and our place on it. ... even if we aren't yet certain about just how much risk our behavior has put us in.

    None of that is a religious belief. It's all observable. That should be the starting point for any discussion, not, "you are acting religious."
     
    2muchcoffeeman, maumann and Mngwa like this.
  6. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member


    Also of the "it's a hacky plug-and-play rhetorical device" variety.
     
  7. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member


    Interestingly, saying something over and over again doesn't make it so.


     
  8. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    What is my “alternate reality?” That I’m skeptical climate change is either as bad as it’s been projected or, if it is that bad, that electric cars and some solar panels in the US won’t shift the trajectory?

    Of course climate change is real, and affected by mankind. That was true in the 1980s when we had “acid rain.” We put scrubbers on smokestacks, and it helped solve the problem.

    We’re closer to a climate doomscape at the moment, where the end of the world - as expressed through a series extreme weather events and earthquakes and fires and literally all natural calamities imaginable, because it’s all climate change - is nigh, yet able to be staved off by a combination of relatively minor, US-based energy solutions that will make travel of any kind harder and more expensive. There’s a fundamental contradiction between the repeatedly stated extremity of the situation and the gnat-on-an-elephant solutions. The embrace of that contradiction, lest the climate gods be angered, gives off the strong scent of religion.

    And it’s a false, cheap one, too.
     
    doctorquant likes this.
  9. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    “Taking preventive measures to blunt the effects of climate change is going to cost a bunch of money and might not even be terribly effective,” is a legitimate argument worth having.

    “I don’t like the people advocating for the other side so I’m going to mock them with (perceived) perjoratives,” is not.
     
  10. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    It's not that I don't like 'em, they just irritate me.
     
  11. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    I'm not catcalling anyone or posting memes or finding some right wing climate-denying dipshit on Twitter for cheap snark. That, to me, is mockery.
     
  12. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page