The Compassionates — and What We're Up Against

"Our side" doesn't have a name, does it? Joseph Romm calls us climate science realists. That doesn't resonate in my heart, though. But since the easiest way to get across what we're doing is to use the term "the precautionary principle" (yup, you just have to know the very basic physics that more CO2 = more heat in the atmosphere, and ask yourself if we want to take chances like that with our children's future), then maybe we should call ourselves The Compassionates. It certainly stands us apart. 

Even though we "Compassionates" spend much of our time, money and energy working to help protect life on this planet and safeguard the future, we just don't have the arsenal of strategies that the other side gets to use. 

A wonderful young activist friend of ours said it recently. "It's not fair. Everything we say, we have to back up with all the latest scientific research. We always have to be so careful and scrupulous and up-to-date in what we say. But the other side gets to distort the truth, cherry pick and tell outright lies — and they always get away with it. How can we ever win?"

I just don't get why there even are two sides to this. Why wouldn't ALL human beings want to ensure a climate-safe and healthy future for their children? Why can't ALL human beings look around and see what's happening? Why do ANY human beings choose money over life?

I just don't get it. It's so discouraging. 

Not only that, but have you noticed that they seem to have a cheat sheet? It's like there's some secret club and they all have to spout the same BS to be part of the club. Even in a raggy local newspaper, the "denialists" and skeptics, contrarians and delayers (and all the others who have an obvious hate on for their grandchildren) rant on and on, using the same old tired stuff that a quick online trip to RealClimate.org would explain, refute or rectify. But everyone seems too blinkin' lazy to go beyond their cheat sheet, to do their own thinking or research synthesis. So they trot out years-old lies, misrepresented "facts" and malicious created misconceptions. They quote research from only a dozen or so notoriously slanted scientists (if they quote research at all). And then quite often they'll throw in a little defamation or ad hominem attack (while accusing us of doing that after we've made sure we didn't do that). 

Like I said, I just don't get it. It's so discouraging. But I do know one thing. Global warming and climate change? Caused by these guys. Without all their delay tactics, we'd be well on our way to that safer, cleaner, healthier, more equitable and more peaceful world of perpetual energy some of us can picture.

The Precautionary Principle Cautions Us to Be Cautious

Have you heard of present-day trolls? (Not the kind that used to lurk under fairytale bridges, but certainly similar.) It's the term used for people who, for fun or money perhaps (I don't think anyone knows their motives for sure), show up in the Comments section of practically every blog, anywhere in the world, at all hours of the day and night, that mentions global warming and climate change — to cast aspersions on those who are concerned about the climate change emergency.

You can tell the trolls by the way they spew things like, "Where's your PROOF?" or "What's your evidence?" when the rest of us are trying to discuss solutions (and the evidence is so accessible, it's completely disingenuous that they keep asking us to track it down and present it to them — a time-wasting manoeuvre they like to use that came to light during the Hackergate thing).

So, to the trolls, a cautionary tale about caution. The "precautionary principle" doesn't insist on 100% proof or complete evidence (although the people already impacted by climate chaos must really wonder about the audacity of skeptics and deniers to keep questioning the existence of global warming).

The precautionary principle says that if there's a chance of harm, we'd better slow down or stop — not keep going with something harmful until we know absolutely, totally, utterly, perfectly, entirely, wholly, fully, thoroughly, unreservedly, definitely, certainly, positively, unconditionally, categorically, unquestionably, undoubtedly, completely and 100% that the suspected cause is indeed the cause.

Sober, intelligent and educated people don't play Russian roulette with their children's future. They just don't.

p.s. The trolls haven't found Compassionate Climate Action yet. Not sure if that means my blog is really small potatoes — or that they can't argue with compassion.

Here's a video from the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment (IonE) that explains all the reasons for caution and the precautionary principle. The only thing I disagree with is their call for low-carbon technology. If we don't get off carbon (ie, all fuels, aka The End of the Burning Age) and get to zero-carbon technology, well... let's just say that wouldn't be a cautious approach to avoiding climate catastrophe.