Sunday, June 3, 2012

Climate change denial

Denial brings controversy and that is worrying, because when there are two positions faced in this way, it usually always exist an undercurrent of intentions in the majority of cases not reaching in its entirety the citizen of a foot. And most times, not to say always, that background is economic. In the issue now before us when were the problems really raised? When there was to decide what debiamos spend the money: curbing climate change or to promote the growth of companies that exploit non-renewable resources such as oil, coal or natural gas.

Denial postulates that man is not favoring that climate change and that this is due to natural causes, so it is not necessary to reverse the numbers seeking to stop it. Advocates consider climate change as a clear and proven reality, say that the denial is nothing more than a pseudoscience that denies global warming is being produced by the man and minimizes their importance to refuse to take action. In general, this denial is fostered by the big business oil and political supporters of the free market.

And what is the reason that this issue is gaining so much relevance these days? The cause is that they intend to extend it to the classrooms of America, where trying to decide if it is relevant or not teach students what the climate change, which are the causes and how to stop it and if this teaching should be accompanied also his opposite belief, i.e., denial, presenting their students as an alternative also scientifically based it.

In some States such as Texas, Utah or South Dakota, is beginning to teach the denialas a valid scientific theory. Deniers demand, with this implementation in schools, that only one side of the debate, claiming that it must show the pros and cons of both positions is not taught.
Proponents of climate change, on the other hand, remember them that 97% of scientists believed that climate change is attributable directly or indirectly to the man, and that denial has no scientific basis behind it, and that only made biased readings of scientific reports, rescuing only the data which may be more favourable to its position.

In conclusion, when this position was created within the framework of a crisis FINACE as the current and by sectors that benefit from this kind of approach, we have forced to consider that denial is, at least, a suspected position.