The Climate, and a Denial of Skepticism

There is no such thing as a climate change skeptic. That is a term referring to a mythological being that does not exist, but which also, unlike dragons, mermaids or hyper-intelligent talking gorillas, is not cool, fun or worthy of any interest or attention.

To claim one is skeptical about the truth of human-caused climate change is nearly akin to claiming skepticism of the Earth being round. Proponents of “flat-Earth theory” are not free thinkers with a different point of view; they are a minority group comprised of obstinate morons who deny the evidence of science, logic and their own senses. Same for climate change deniers. The most vocal “climate skeptics” are not in fact true believers. Whether a politician, lobbyist, or corporate hack, and there isn’t so much difference between them, it is not a lack of knowledge or convincing that makes them claim the idiot shit they do, it’s money. They profit from environmentally destructive industries. Their defense of these industries and denials against human-caused climate change is not the fault of ignorance, it’s for the sake of profit. While an argument for them being stupid could be easily made, that would almost be letting them off the hook. They are far more greedy than they are stupid.

Those who are not involved in the fossil fuel industry, who do not have a stake to profit from environmental destruction, but who actually believe the lies they’re told about climate change being a hoax are real people, who could be pitied for their stupidity if not so abrasively aggressive in expressing it. The sad fact is that these people have been wronged. Their health is at risk like any other’s, as is that of their children and future generations, but they are so incurious, so desperately needing to be led and fed false platitudes by evil people who don’t give a fuck about them that they not only believe the nonsense they’re told, but regurgitate it. Though technically victims, they are also willing accomplices, and so are part of the problem.

Climate change deniers is the more accurate way of describing these people; it is true that they are denying evidence and logic as to the detrimental impact that humans, particularly through industrialization, have had on the Earth’s climate. They deny it in the way that I deny the claim, “I can’t believe it’s not butter.” Yes, I can believe it. It is not butter. Butter is rich, delicious and nutritionally dense. I can absolutely tell the difference between wonderful butter and a tub of sickeningly insipid congealed vegetable oils and chemicals. Everyone can tell the difference. Butter is butter; butter is not garbage. Fuck you. Don’t lie to us. Have some self-respect and show respect for others. Keep butter in your home, and if I request butter, give me butter.

But in some cases, even the label of climate change denialism is too soft. For certain people, the crusade against taking action to lessen the damage done to the climate goes beyond simple denial. My suggestion is that we appropriate an existing term and reapply its meaning to the scum actively causing disastrous climate change. The politicians, lobbyists and those working for corporations in industries actively doing anything and everything they can to further infect the Earth and do such damage to the environment that the planet becomes unlivable for humans and most other species, deserve the label of eco-terrorists.

Yes, eco-terrorist is a term typically lobbed by the Right (and I wish this was one issue that I didn’t have to make political, because fundamentally it is not and should not be at all, but politicians have made it a political issue, asinine as that is, so here we are) against activists, some with radical methods, who work to preserve and protect the environment. While I won’t broadly condone every radical action done by environmental activists, they have undoubtedly never done comparable damage or presented anything close to an equivalent threat against society and life generally as has been done by those on the other side. People leading protest rallies, chaining themselves to trees, or sabotaging oil pipelines are not dangerous or malicious on a scale with the corporations against whom they act. If a militant, threatening-sounding name must be applied to them, environmental guerrillas could be more apt. Whereas for the corporations polluting oceans, land, air and drinking water, posing a serious viable and ongoing threat against humanity, eco-terrorist is actually kind of light. Maybe environmental fascists, architects of global genocide or straight up enemies of mankind would be better. But those are all mouthfuls. We can workshop it.

This is not a debate. Among everyone whose opinion is valuable, there is consensus. There are not different sides, both with valid viewpoints, each deserving fair time and consideration. There is one truth and one right side.