4 ms·

The way I see it, it seems there are 2 issues which get confused a lot: A) Is there evidence of climate change (Yes/No) B) Is human activity impacting the cli

by kelvin0 10y ago

The way I see it, it seems there are 2 issues which get confused a lot: A) Is there evidence of climate change (Yes/No) B) Is human activity impacting the climate change (Yes/No) I think most people across the political spectrum agree with A) Being true (please correct me if wrong). Of course, some will disagree, just as there are people who believe the earth is flat. oh, well... The big contention these days is mostly regarding B). I guess some groups don't want to deal with the economic ramifications they assume will impact them if human activity is at the core of the climate change. On the other hand, if it's not 'our fault' we can carry on and not worry about finding solutions? I don't completely understand where the 'red team' would stand on this, anyone care to clarify?

davesque 10y ago
I don't believe that climate scientists even see item B as being very much up for debate. And I feel safe in saying that these red teams would think otherwise. The writing is on the wall, really. How could it surprise anyone that this is happening now, given that our current president (and his cabinet) has deep financial ties with big players in the fossil fuel industry.
- ocschwar 10y ago
  The debate on Item B pretty much ended in 1957.
basurihn 10y ago
The contention depends on the sphere. Whilst the laypeople battle out A and B, there are other issues... C. What is the climates degree of sensitivity to CO2? How MUCH impact? Any PhD who tells you they know this is a kook or charlatan. Source - I dated a climate scientist. Take it with what salt you must, go read Curry if it won't offend your orthodoxy. D. What is the climates degree of sensitivity to anything, for that matter. I'm sure the red team is at best controlled by a hostile minority, just like the blue team. We're doubly fucked if climate change is in a anthropogenic positive feedback loop but its caused by something else like water vapor. Good luck getting red or blue to discover something like that. Both sides are children.

by kelvin0 10y ago

davesque 10y ago

I don't believe that climate scientists even see item B as being very much up for debate. And I feel safe in saying that these red teams would think otherwise. The writing is on the wall, really. How could it surprise anyone that this is happening now, given that our current president (and his cabinet) has deep financial ties with big players in the fossil fuel industry.

ocschwar 10y ago
The debate on Item B pretty much ended in 1957.

basurihn 10y ago

The contention depends on the sphere. Whilst the laypeople battle out A and B, there are other issues... C. What is the climates degree of sensitivity to CO2? How MUCH impact? Any PhD who tells you they know this is a kook or charlatan. Source - I dated a climate scientist. Take it with what salt you must, go read Curry if it won't offend your orthodoxy. D. What is the climates degree of sensitivity to anything, for that matter. I'm sure the red team is at best controlled by a hostile minority, just like the blue team. We're doubly fucked if climate change is in a anthropogenic positive feedback loop but its caused by something else like water vapor. Good luck getting red or blue to discover something like that. Both sides are children.