How could this possibly be?
(The Hockey Schtick) A paper published today in Global Environmental Change finds that “a central organising idea for climate change sceptics” is that climate change is governed by natural cycles, such as ocean oscillations and solar activity, and that “‘sceptics can have pro-environmental values similar to climate change believers.”
According to the authors, “In contrast to other studies that postulate scepticism and denial as individuals’ fear management strategies in the face of climate change threat, we found that the natural cycles view is founded on a reassuring deeper conviction about how nature works, and is linked to other pro-environmental values not commonly found in sceptical groups. It is a paradox of natural cycles thinking that it rejects the anthropocentrism that is at the heart of science-based environmentalism. By contrast, it places humans as deeply integrated with nature, rather than operating outside it and attempting with uncertain science to control something that is ultimately uncontrollable.”
Quite true, most skeptics I know are pro-enviroment for things that actually matter, such as water quality, toxic pollutants, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, atmospheric particulates, etc., but opposed to wasting the majority of environmental efforts on trying to control the weather with the harmless, essential, & trace gas CO2.
Isn’t that something I’ve been postulating for a long, long time? And mentioned many times that one of the things that heavily annoys me about the Warmists is that they fold every real environmental issue under the banner of “climate change”, which diminishes the significance of the environmental issues? I’m not a big fan of oil or coal, not because of CO2, but because they aren’t exactly clean. I’d like to see them replaced, but biofuels aren’t ready yet. I support solar, wind, geothermal, hydrothermal (and nuclear), but solar and wind aren’t ready yet, and I’m against pissing taxpayer money away on programs that reward campaign contributors, increase energy costs (meaning everything goes up), and provides little usable power. Geothermal is making strides, and will be best accomplished by focusing on small projects, particularly for homes, apartments, small buildings. Hydrothermal is typically blocked by enviroweenies, who do not want fish harmed or something.
However, let’s also not that Warmists aren’t really enviros, they’re far left progressives who want to use “climate change” to increase the power and size of Government while instituting far left authoritarian regimes.
I love ‘Nature’. The only reason I use scare quotes is the machinations of the believers (in eeeeevil ‘carbon’ sic[I call it carbon dioxide – but then I have the small disadvantage of being trained as a chemist]).
I would support most environmental initiatives, excepting only those which are clearly anti-anthropic (or have a clear statist/collectivist/anti-progress agenda).
All I can say to these folks is “yawn”. It took them long enough to unstop their ears and hear what WE had to say about the environment. Instead, it’s like the people who claim the Tea Party is racist, they haven’t a single clue what it is we believe in, they just make shit up and sing “lalalalala” I can’t hear you.