3 ms·
> Suppose, the consensus in 3 years was they where going faster than the speed of light would you have updated your beliefs then? Yes I would have updated my b
by ythn 9y ago
> Suppose, the consensus in 3 years was they where going faster than the speed of light would you have updated your beliefs then?
Yes I would have updated my beliefs, but my new beliefs would be both weak and weakly held. If in 20 years the consensus was still solid they would become both strong and strongly held.
> Because that's not even close to enough evidence for say global worming opponents.
For them the evidence they need to see is perceptibly rising temperatures or sea levels. A lot of people view climate change as highly politicized/hyped science (which it is) and are therefore skeptical if not of climate science of the apocalyptic predictions (which are not universally agreed upon by climate scientists). They will change their minds if they see that it hasn't snowed in 10 years or if their beach front properties are getting swallowed by the ocean.
- Retric 9y agoWe have perceptibly rising temperatures that's not enough for these people, because it's not rising everywhere evenly and people don't really have great memories.
- ythn 9y agoWell, demonizing them doesn't help. Most people are willing to talk solutions, not a lot of people like being insulted. For example, I've had lots of discussions with climate skeptics about nuclear power and I can usually get them on board by the end of the conversation.
- Retric 9y agoI don't mean to demonize just be realistic. Changes that are obvious and massive to the CEO of a company which owns ski resorts around the world may seem meaningless to people living at those same locations. I like most people don't recall the date of each snowfall over the last 50 years, because it has little real impact on me, but keeping accurate track of those same storms can be of vital importance for some people who see these trends as both obvious and critical.