How I changed some climate changers

I was recently invited to a panel discussion/debate on climate change.

The organization was very pro climate change and figured I would argue the point against change based on my past writings. The panel arguing for change was much younger and highly progressive.

They had laid out a narrative — as expected — that if we do not change our treatment of the planet, we will perish.

When it came to me speaking to the point, I thought I could shut down their narrative with factual information I had gathered prior to refute their anticipated argument points.

I then realized that that was the reason I was invited to the panel and decided not to go down the road they had pigeoned holed me in.

Instead I decided to question them on the same field they were playing on.

I asked the panel one simple question.

How do we, as a people who enjoy the luxury of having unlimited sources of energy, tell third world countries trying to raise their citizens out of poverty that they can’t have power to better their lives.

I said that 4 billion people on this planet enjoy the pleasure of secure energy, meaning the other 4 billion people do not have reliable sources of energy and must spend hours daily finding their needed sources of energy.

Who are we to say to them that you must remain subservient to us in your lives so that the panel arguing the point feels good about the planet.

I said it is inhumane and immoral to tell developing countries that cheap energy, which allowed our country and others to prosper for the last two centuries, will not be available to you because it may cause future harm to nature.

I then cited some alternative thoughts by climatologists on the figures that were used by the panel, and said I would not hold back the future of billions of people based on a science that was incomplete at best.

After the debate members of the audience — from both sides of the aisle — used the term mike-drop moment.

I merely said thank you, but added that it is a moral argument that I believe in and not a debating tactic to throw off an opponent.