11 ms·
I 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 thin
by lutorm 16y ago
I 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". :)