3 ms·

What is a climate change denier? Someone who denies that the climate has and will change? Of course stopping all production will stop changing the makeup of t

by brc 11y ago

What is a climate change denier? Someone who denies that the climate has and will change? Of course stopping all production will stop changing the makeup of the atmosphere as far as humans go. In the same way stopping people killing each other solves the murder problem. Most people are tryin to talk beyond a pat level of posturing. I'm not ready to throw all my devices and vehicles and climate control in landfill to try and subtely change the weather 100 years hence. Nor do I think that intentionally retarding productivity and growth for the same hope. In this I am intellectually honest.

orf 11y ago
> what is a climate change denier? Someone who denies that the climate has and will change? Clearly in this context someone who denies the impact man is having on the climate. > In this I am intellectually honest. And monstrously short sighted. American, I assume? > Of course stopping all production will stop changing the makeup of the atmosphere as far as humans go. Who said anything about stopping all production? That's obviously not going to happen. What should happen is a rapid reduction in the emission of gasses like CO2 through whatever means necessary. If that means you can't buy more cheap crap from China, or have to actually think about your fuel consumption so you can't drive down the block to buy a burger that's been frozen and flown in from thousands of miles away then so be it.
- brc 11y ago
  So you define someone with labels and then argue against what you think that person thinks. Labelling and then arguing against that label is a good way to feel correct but fail to persuade. I am not American nor do I fit into any of the labels you wish to press onto my argument. I don't 'deny' that human activities have an impact on climate. There is scientific and physical evidence that this is true. It also passes the 'obviously' test because any change to the state of a system will have an impact on the system. What I do understand is that previous predictions as to the level and severity of impact are completely incorrect after several decades of study and predictions. On this even ipcc contributing scientists agree. What I also understand is that current policies are inconsequential even if the current sensitivity levels (which appear overstated) are correct. On this most politicians and activists agree as we can read from the sober observations from Paris. What is true is that trying to socially engineer changes by banning certain types of technology or use of technology, or by erecting grand schemes are all doomed to fail, and are a complete waste of time and resources. What will change things are the development of new technology. The best way to get that is to stop trying to distort resource allocation in a specific way, particularly as doing so diverts resources towards negative or low eroei reruns which further hampers the ability to deliver new tech and lowers the ability to adapt to a changing climate. If you're an activist, that's fine. But I write for the people reading this and thinking through positions, not to sway people by using labels and stereotypes.

by brc 11y ago

orf 11y ago

> what is a climate change denier? Someone who denies that the climate has and will change? Clearly in this context someone who denies the impact man is having on the climate. > In this I am intellectually honest. And monstrously short sighted. American, I assume? > Of course stopping all production will stop changing the makeup of the atmosphere as far as humans go. Who said anything about stopping all production? That's obviously not going to happen. What should happen is a rapid reduction in the emission of gasses like CO2 through whatever means necessary. If that means you can't buy more cheap crap from China, or have to actually think about your fuel consumption so you can't drive down the block to buy a burger that's been frozen and flown in from thousands of miles away then so be it.

brc 11y ago
So you define someone with labels and then argue against what you think that person thinks. Labelling and then arguing against that label is a good way to feel correct but fail to persuade. I am not American nor do I fit into any of the labels you wish to press onto my argument. I don't 'deny' that human activities have an impact on climate. There is scientific and physical evidence that this is true. It also passes the 'obviously' test because any change to the state of a system will have an impact on the system. What I do understand is that previous predictions as to the level and severity of impact are completely incorrect after several decades of study and predictions. On this even ipcc contributing scientists agree. What I also understand is that current policies are inconsequential even if the current sensitivity levels (which appear overstated) are correct. On this most politicians and activists agree as we can read from the sober observations from Paris. What is true is that trying to socially engineer changes by banning certain types of technology or use of technology, or by erecting grand schemes are all doomed to fail, and are a complete waste of time and resources. What will change things are the development of new technology. The best way to get that is to stop trying to distort resource allocation in a specific way, particularly as doing so diverts resources towards negative or low eroei reruns which further hampers the ability to deliver new tech and lowers the ability to adapt to a changing climate. If you're an activist, that's fine. But I write for the people reading this and thinking through positions, not to sway people by using labels and stereotypes.