3 ms·

I'm not absolute in saying that there isn't anthropogenic climate change. I'm saying politics are a big factor in the whole debate.

• mikeash 10y ago
  Of course they are. It's a scientific question that has somehow turned into a political debate. But that's separate from the question of your position on the thing itself. Do you think anthropogenic climate change is a thing, or not? If not, then you're kind of dancing around it. If so, then I don't get why you're so upset.
  • FrancoDiaz 10y ago
    I thought I made my position pretty clear on the last post. When someone is presented with a theory, do you expect them to think it's a thing or not? I don't believe it's a binary option. Effects of global warming aren't even close to consensus even among believers. I wasn't upset, but was pointing out that there's many things that you believe in that other people don't. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. For example, I believe that there's a huge political motivation on the left to believe in global warming that is separate from the science. I'm assuming you disagree. That's fine. You won't change my mind, and I won't change yours. There is no consensus of agreement, so I'm not sure why you would assume that there would be on HN
  • FrancoDiaz 10y ago
    I was just thinkng of the butterfly effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect So the question isn't whether anthropogenic climate change is a thing. The questions are to what extent are the effects? What are the costs and efficacy of combating climate change?