Protecting Principles, Losing Friends

PRINCIPLE, at least in principle, is more important then friendship. Friendship, like marriage, is of best dissolved. One's principles endure, if they have merit. In most instances its best to nurture a friendship than to be right, but not on matters of principle, what is now called "core values". I would rather risk losing a friend arguing with a climate change denier than avoid addressing the issue, but only if the climate change denier broaches topic. I never start a conversation about climate change, but I'll finish one, whether or not it finishes a friendship. First, I try to explain that man made climate change is neither a Chinese hoax nor a liberal conspiracy. If my friend-in-denial fails to accede in this, which portends trouble, I politely point out that any and all conspiracy theories require evidence, if not proof, to achieve credibility. Nor, I try to explain, was the term "climate change" invented to disguise the term "global warming", as conservatives often claim. it was invented to clarify, not conceal. Furthermore, the reason we now speak of carbon rather carbon dioxide is that the extra oxygen injected into the atmosphere is harmless, and needs no mention. The carbon is the culprit. Again, clarification, not concealment. Inevitably the denier claims that there exists no consensus on climate change, that opinions vary widely, and that, in any event science, science is wrong much of the time. None of this is true. there is indeed a universal consensus among scientists, the only dissenters being people paid by corporations and right wing Christians. One of my friends reminded me that scientists sometimes disagreed, as if that fact renders science invalid, as if he had exposed a fatal flaw in the scientific method. Scientists, I responded, do not disagree sometimes. they disagree constantly, trillions of times, which is why science works. Science constantly improves and corrects itself through self criticism, ultimately yielding truth. When a climate change denier reminds me that the climate is constantly changing naturally, and always has, without any human involvement, as if this fact is a law of nature which prevents all human causation, we have arrived at the summit. Thirty billion tons of carbon annually added to the atmosphere, for an aggregate of seven hundred and fifty billion tons, has an impact by remaining there always and absorbing heat, as clearly revealed by the laws of physics and chemistry. The heat absorption and retention properties of carbon is considerably greater than those of nitrogen and oxygen, whether the climate changes all by its lonesome or not. The science is simple, available to anyone, and has been for two hundred years. Scientists have talked about it for two centuries. The twisted reasoning of denying reality to defend conservative ideology is less simple, but understandable. We dislike having our cherished beliefs challenged, beliefs such as the conservative mantra that the status quo must be defended at all costs, or, better yet, we must return to the ways of bygone days. The arguing is worthwhile. It is possible to find new friends, but not a new ecosystem.