4 ms·

The minute I saw people calling those who dispute the accuracy of findings, "Climate Change Deniers" I realised that this was less about science and more about

by iuguy 17y ago

The minute I saw people calling those who dispute the accuracy of findings, "Climate Change Deniers" I realised that this was less about science and more about politics. The science should stand up on it's own two feet, it shouldn't need 'consensus' from closed groups. Release the data and the methods and we'll find out what's really happening by putting the hypothesis under scrutiny.

lukifer 17y ago
On the one hand, it isn't right for anyone who questions the science (which is, after all, the point of science) to get stuck with a highly pejorative label. On the other hand, what else do you call those who are so convinced of a One World Government conspiracy that they refuse to accept the very notion that humanity can cause long-term damage to the ecosystem? They're out there, I've met quite a few.
- iterationx 17y ago
  One can reject AGW and accept that humanity is causing long term damage to the ecosystem. Your comment reads like a noble lie, "well maybe the science is a little shaky, but we need to implement these policies {driving less, energy reduction, limits on emissions, etc} so let's just get on with it"
  - lukifer 17y ago
    I do think some "green" policies (alternative fuel sources, such as solar and nuclear) make a lot of sense whether or not AGW is true, and in those instances we should act before the science is in. But I didn't mean to imply such an either/or, "you're with us or you're against us" position. My point is that such extremes of position do exist, and that there are people who genuinely believe that since our habitat has been (mostly) ideal for thousands of years, that it will continue to be so forever, and that it is impossible for humanity to alter that, despite centuries of heavy industry. And those folks have their head in the sand w/r/t science and reality, every bit as much as those for whom AGW is unquestionable dogma.
vannevar 17y ago
It is clearly about the politics. If you take the time to read the article and examine the 'inaccuracies', you'll see that they have nothing to do with the science but are misstatements about things like alternative forms of energy. The data HAVE been released, HAVE been scrutinized, and the overwhelming consensus among people who have spent their lives studying the climate is that the Earth's climate is warming and that excessive CO2 production is the likely cause. The fact that some people try to advance their cause (alternative energy) or overestimate the effects, does not change the scientifically arrived at conclusion.

by iuguy 17y ago

lukifer 17y ago

On the one hand, it isn't right for anyone who questions the science (which is, after all, the point of science) to get stuck with a highly pejorative label. On the other hand, what else do you call those who are so convinced of a One World Government conspiracy that they refuse to accept the very notion that humanity can cause long-term damage to the ecosystem? They're out there, I've met quite a few.

iterationx 17y ago
One can reject AGW and accept that humanity is causing long term damage to the ecosystem. Your comment reads like a noble lie, "well maybe the science is a little shaky, but we need to implement these policies {driving less, energy reduction, limits on emissions, etc} so let's just get on with it"
- lukifer 17y ago
  I do think some "green" policies (alternative fuel sources, such as solar and nuclear) make a lot of sense whether or not AGW is true, and in those instances we should act before the science is in. But I didn't mean to imply such an either/or, "you're with us or you're against us" position. My point is that such extremes of position do exist, and that there are people who genuinely believe that since our habitat has been (mostly) ideal for thousands of years, that it will continue to be so forever, and that it is impossible for humanity to alter that, despite centuries of heavy industry. And those folks have their head in the sand w/r/t science and reality, every bit as much as those for whom AGW is unquestionable dogma.

vannevar 17y ago

It is clearly about the politics. If you take the time to read the article and examine the 'inaccuracies', you'll see that they have nothing to do with the science but are misstatements about things like alternative forms of energy. The data HAVE been released, HAVE been scrutinized, and the overwhelming consensus among people who have spent their lives studying the climate is that the Earth's climate is warming and that excessive CO2 production is the likely cause. The fact that some people try to advance their cause (alternative energy) or overestimate the effects, does not change the scientifically arrived at conclusion.