Controversial views on global warming
Saving the world without locking you in a glass box
I hold the following truths to be self-evident:
Global warmingis real, and the most important problem the international community needs to address this decade.
The recent hurricane / cold wave / other severe weather event you experienced does not prove global warming caused it.
You do not need to perfect your anti-racism before fighting against global warming.
Somehow, all of those views are controversial.
Global warming is real - Approximately half of the Republican Party doesn’t believe this. There are many data sources that will tell you that temperatures are up; however some “deniers” attribute this to the urban heat effect, periodic changes in the strength of the sun, or other reasons unrelated to human activity. The Mauna Loa CO2 data is about as indisputable as possible - CO2 concentrations are going up. And the reason they are going up is also obvious: usage of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas).
Global warming doesn’t cause individual weather events - There is a cottage industry of attributing any weather event to global warming, much as how 2500 years ago it might attribute them to an angry divine being. Deutsche Welle discusses How global warming can cause Europe's harsh winter weather. Vox asks the same question about cold weather in Texas. To put it bluntly: bad weather has existed for longer than human civilization. Implying a correlation when there is no statistical evidence a correlation exists is just a sloppy attempt at pathos.
Combatting global warming does not require you to first focus on anti-racism - Recently, an Auckland youth organization fighting global warming disbanded for being “a racist, white-dominated space.” This specific example may be dismissed as kids getting tired of their Politics Fairproject and wanting to start a different one. But the view is not unique to them. A Sierra Club article says “Climate change is racist because the system that caused it is racist.” Teen Vogue says “Young people have advocated for an intersectional approach to the climate crisis that addresses the realities of environmental racism.” This is, roughly, the successor ideology as defined by Wesley Yang. To put it briefly: I oppose the successor ideology.
The term “climate change” is often preferred. I’m not sure why. “Atmospheric composition change” would be the most accurate, but is too wordy. The specific change to the climate that is concerning is global warming caused by the greenhouse effect.
More specifically, the most important problem the international community needs to address collectively. There are other important problems which are conflicts within the international community, such as the situation in Xinjiang.
In the United States, there is such a thing as a Science Fair. At the primary school level, these normally take the form of a poster board, examining questions such as “what is the brain” or “what are penguins”. At the secondary school level, students are expected to try to do something resembling scientific research, with the aid of mentors. Obviously it is difficult and unusual for the average 15 year old to come up with a bona fide scientific discovery while studying other subjects full-time in high school. We conceptualize a Politics Fair as something similar.