4 ms·

I did not say what you think I said. In a topic as complex (and contentious) as weather, climate, global warming, etc. I think we should focus on understanding

by Clanan 10y ago

I did not say what you think I said. In a topic as complex (and contentious) as weather, climate, global warming, etc. I think we should focus on understanding the science and employing civic discourse. I simply repeated what the scientist said: no conclusions yet, need more data. And in response I receive the blatant accusations of "classic denialist tactic[s]"? You think that's not toxic to discourse? (Disclosure to pre-empt the common accusation of ignorance: I'm scientifically trained and work in renewable energy R&D.)

okreallywtf 10y ago
Unfortunately I think the level of discourse is already at rock-bottom. I would like to agree with you and I think people do need to be careful and not jump the gun (and thereby provide fodder for the denialist camp) but at some point we can't simply be academic about it all - the evidence for AGW (or ACC preferably) is overwhelming at this point and while an objective academic is preferable it can also be damaging to the goal of changing public opinion. The denialist camp has a simple and effective strategy for disputing anthropomorphic climate change: First, always call it global warming to make it less understood and then if its cold [1], dispute GW and if any single piece of information doesn't 100% fit with GW (ie, a single datapoint that shows global temperatures cooling by ignoring ocean temperatures [2]). However, if you are being 100% honest about any climate measurements you cannot say anything other than "Well, this single measurement doesn't tell us anything but it fits with the trend of rising temperatures globally and we need more data and research.". This may be true, but its not winning the argument. People will follow simple, easy narratives and will shy from complex arguments whose consequences are also terrifying and potentially apocalyptic. By sticking to our guns and taking the high road, we might be dooming ourselves and by the time people really feel climate change it will be too late. Is our high-minded discourse worth that? I'm not saying we rabidly jump on every datapoint and say "SEE CLIMATE CHANGE", but until I see a lot more credible information I think its time to stop taking such a passive stance. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/james-inhofe-snowball-climate-change/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/james-inhofe-snowball... [2] https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-c...
mrow84 10y ago
So, just to be clear, you're saying that the attribution of reduced Antarctic sea ice extent to global warming is unclear, and not that the phenomenon referred to as global warming is itself somehow brought into doubt by the lack of clarity on that particular issue?

by Clanan 10y ago

okreallywtf 10y ago

Unfortunately I think the level of discourse is already at rock-bottom. I would like to agree with you and I think people do need to be careful and not jump the gun (and thereby provide fodder for the denialist camp) but at some point we can't simply be academic about it all - the evidence for AGW (or ACC preferably) is overwhelming at this point and while an objective academic is preferable it can also be damaging to the goal of changing public opinion. The denialist camp has a simple and effective strategy for disputing anthropomorphic climate change: First, always call it global warming to make it less understood and then if its cold [1], dispute GW and if any single piece of information doesn't 100% fit with GW (ie, a single datapoint that shows global temperatures cooling by ignoring ocean temperatures [2]). However, if you are being 100% honest about any climate measurements you cannot say anything other than "Well, this single measurement doesn't tell us anything but it fits with the trend of rising temperatures globally and we need more data and research.". This may be true, but its not winning the argument. People will follow simple, easy narratives and will shy from complex arguments whose consequences are also terrifying and potentially apocalyptic. By sticking to our guns and taking the high road, we might be dooming ourselves and by the time people really feel climate change it will be too late. Is our high-minded discourse worth that? I'm not saying we rabidly jump on every datapoint and say "SEE CLIMATE CHANGE", but until I see a lot more credible information I think its time to stop taking such a passive stance. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/james-inhofe-snowball-climate-change/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/james-inhofe-snowball... [2] https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-c...

mrow84 10y ago

So, just to be clear, you're saying that the attribution of reduced Antarctic sea ice extent to global warming is unclear, and not that the phenomenon referred to as global warming is itself somehow brought into doubt by the lack of clarity on that particular issue?