First, are you actually responding to this year’s column by Collum without reading it? Really?
Yes, really. For me, Collum’s annual write-ups are like a dish whipped up every year by your aunt for the family Holiday dinner that has some nutrition but always isn’t to your taste – maybe a little toxic. Would you feel compelled to down another heaping serving of the stuff by the third or fourth year it appears in front of you? Of course not. I took another taste this year, but didn’t like it again, so I simply accepted his Trigger Warning invitation at the beginning of Part I to once again not read most of his annual compendium. By his definition stated there, that makes me a ‘douche bag who cannot take a joke’, since he claims what he’s doing is comedy and satire. Ha ha – gotta love him, right? Not really – no more than I would an obnoxious stand-up comedian who yells lame stuff like that from the stage at a guest heading for the exit. Anyway, per my experience, some of his writing is worthwhile or funny, but much not. Some love his bad boy act, I’m sure, but to each his or her own. I find much of what he writes really not worth reading.
It doesn’t mean I don’t listen to or read articles by more serious, open people who have new thoughts, different views than I do and, IMO, are interested more in communicating than snarking to the choir. I do all the time, and some have contributed to a significant change in my thinking in the last year or two – including you, by the way, Tom, even though I’m sure we still disagree on many things. And I wasn’t attempting to comment on the vast chunk of his writing I didn’t read this year. I was commenting on what I’ve read from David Collum for years. As I said, though I agree with many of Collum’s views (and disagree with others), but I consider him a shit-stirrer, a title I really imagine he’d be proud to claim as his own, given his perpetual bad-boy act bemusement at how people react to him – how they love him or hate him. Divisive. For me, there’s already plenty of that around. Life is short and there are better things to do. That was my comment.
Second, do I understand you correctly: you divide people regarding climate change into two groups as either “believers” (like yourself) or “deniers” (which is “unbelievers”) like Collum? If so, it seems to me that the scientific debate is at most only secondary to you because “belief” is the crux of the matter. Belief (like religious belief) is usually discussed as a personal matter about which dogmatism is considered rude in polite company. But you seem pretty dogmatic.
Your response, on the other hand, while potentially critical, was earnest and to the point. On controversial stuff, as I said, I really prefer that, at least as a starting point. You didn’t assume you understood what I said, but double checked it – avoiding a key mistake we all often make of reacting before making sure what the other is actually communicating, eg that I'm using words like ‘belief’ the same way you do, etc. And you asked the important questions.
My impression is I didn’t communicate well, and/or you didn’t understand well the point of what I was trying to make about how I formed my own beliefs about climate, but that’s okay. I have zero interest in getting into the scientific debate at this point, after 40 years, and like you, consider it somewhat less relevant in the light of general overshoot. We’re not going to be sorting the climate science debate out in a few crisp exchanges here, and that was the underlying point. It feels like a waste of time. That’s why I made reference to the fact that I don’t believe that, at this point, it’s the scientific details that decide what one thinks about climate science. It’s more one’s overall life experience, who your family is, what ‘tribe’ you identify with, etc., and in particular, how you see the motivations, integrity and belief context of those making the arguments. I think Collum’s implication that, even it’s going to be catastrophic, we can’t detect serious climate change in our lifetime is hogwash, but that’s just my opinion. And that's just his opinion, based on whatever facts he’s cherry-picked. He’s got his stats, I’ve got mine. You obviously must not agree with his statement either, since you said you accept that climate is changing, for whatever reason.
On solutions, the brief answer is that my opinion has shifted, probably to more in agreement with your and Collum’s views in some respects. I’ve become convinced by my readings and interactions everywhere, in person and online over the last year or so, (including your and my conversations a few months back), that politically and practically, a Green New Deal can’t replace fossil fuels in the time needed to avert climate change on the IPCC schedule or resource overshoot disruption schedule, and that, however it happens, eliminating fossil fuels will be a giant disruption to our unsustainable consumer society juggernaut. Art Berman’s and Gail Tverberg’s, Bill Rees (Post-Carbon Institute) analyses, and many other sources online shifted my view. You know, non-snarky, earnest people, sincerely trying to collaborate and communicate something. ;-) That doesn't mean that I don't think we shouldn't try to make a shift to renewables as part of the process, just that we have to be realistic about what's useful and what's not, what can be accomplished in what timeframe.
At this point, I think we’re in over-shoot and the best case for helping ourselves and the planet will be trying to make the best of a meaningful break down of the current system and to start immediately focusing and thinking about how to live lives that sustainably use less energy and resources, starting both individually and at a community level – up to whatever macro level coordination can be achieved. That’s where we’re headed, so better to put as much thought and friendly collaboration into it we can. Hurling insults, creating caricatures and implying evil motivations can be fun and appropriate occasionally in the process, but on the whole isn't that helpful. Getting on the same page as much as possible and collaborating as much as possible seems better in the really tough situation we face. The family-level, community-level, national and international level arguments (and war dangers) will likely only grow as difficulty increases, and it's good to try to counter that. And the sooner the real danger signals start breaking through and disrupting the current system and triggering thought and action the better, even though it’s very likely to not be a good situation, economically, politically, etc. Unlike Collum, I do believe that humans are massively disrupting the global ecology and causing species die off in addition to depleting the resource base, so the sooner our unsustainable system starts breaking and forcing change toward a more sustainable one, the better.