3 ms·
You know, my position is that I'm unconvinced that climate change is being affected by Humans quite as much (it seems rational we affect it a bit) as some peopl
by ErrantX 16y ago
You know, my position is that I'm unconvinced that climate change is being affected by Humans quite as much (it seems rational we affect it a bit) as some people say.
(straight up; I'm not here to argue that out. This isn't the right forum, it's just setting the story).
I usually get branded a climate denier (and sometimes a loon :)) even in relatively high brow discussion. Which is amusing because you get real idiot deniers sucking up to you and sensible people you want to have a discussion with ignoring you.
This raises two points.
Firstly a poor assumption has been made; because every time I start trying to compare which papers I have read with others in the discussion they either a) point me to a magazine/paper article or b) don't know what I am waffling about. It's annoying because you quickly realise that the most well read [non climatologist] on the subject are almost exclusively in the "bit of both camps" category - and, sadly, we are all still branded deniers.
The second point is it worries me that this is a Scientific field that is based on the idea that not-believing in man made GW is akin to being heathen sin and crazy talk. I hate that, it seems so irrational given the fact we are still developing the theory!
- lutorm 16y agoI applaud you for actually digging in and understanding what the studies are saying, it's a vast field and to try to do that is daunting. However, I don't think it's a surprise that not believing in man-made GW is met with a huge amount of distrust (I assume you mean by actual scientists) because to most climate scientists, that question is settled. There is argument over the severity of the effect, but not over its basic existence. Even if you have an good explanation of why the majority of scientists got everything totally wrong, any community has more inertia than being swayed by lone dissenting voices unless they are very well known and respected, because you will basically be telling them all that they fucked up.
- ErrantX 16y agoHonestly. Most climate scientists shrug :-) as I said it's rationale that man has an affect on the climate. If you consider the work done so far there really is not much more we can honestly say than that. It always amuses me, too, the slanging match that evolves over what could be a fairly trivial point. Truthfully we are sorely lacking in long term data (no easy solution to that) and filling that void is this "elephant". Ultimately a rational decision must be made that is completely unnconnected to GW. And that is: what is climate change going to do, and how do we need to react? Currently I have quiet confidence we will start to ask that within the next decade.
- lutorm 16y agoUltimately a rational decision must be made that is completely unnconnected to GW. And that is: what is climate change going to do, and how do we need to react? You lost me here, how is the question of what is climate change going to do completely unconnected to global warming?
- ErrantX 16y agoSorry, I forgot the qualifier "man made". :)