Tim Shanasy, Byron Bay
The climate science debate has been running for way too many action-stalling years. Why?
The term science comes from the Latin word scientia, meaning ‘knowledge’. So all sciences are fields of evidence-based knowledge. Simple.
So why are there still people within our knowledge-soaking, protein-rich, healthy communities who refute climate science? Do they also actively refute the outcomes of science in their daily lives?
All manner of science, from the knowledge that smashing a rock can make for a sharp food-cutting tool, to the vastly adopted inventions of cars, jet planes, bridges, highrise buildings, TVs, computers etc are taken totally as a given, no questions asked, thanks to the sciences of metallurgy, maths, physics, chemistry.
But the science of climate is notably excluded by some.
How can we trust our lives so directly with all sciences’ involvement, but not for one of its disciplines, climate science?
The peer group scrutiny and agreement amongst the overwhelming majority of climate scientists globally is telling and warning us that all life on Earth as we know it is collapsing at an increasingly alarming rate, and that we all must act immediately to mitigate our emissions to avert this global disaster NOW or run the imminent risk of civilisation collapse.
That’s everything for all time, because going beyond the tipping point of when no amount of CO2 mitigation will make any difference will take nature tens of thousands of years to rectify, if it does at all.
It’s bizarre not to transition out of coal and oil into free endless renewable energy via the sun. Yet this is what enough of us are voting for, election after election; a government that actively pursues the energy technologies of the 1950s.
For all climate denialists and coal huggers, please ask yourselves, ‘Why you trust all of the sciences with your life, but not the science of climate?’