3 ms·

>the rest of us recognize that the debate is indeed about the severity and consequences of a rapidly changing climate And yet, your grandparent comment... >th

>the rest of us recognize that the debate is indeed about the severity and consequences of a rapidly changing climate And yet, your grandparent comment... >the other says that CO2 has no effect on natural, periodic climate cycles [Emphasis above mine] No, this absolutely is not what "the other side" says. This is not about "semantics", it's a fundamental disconnect wherein people are talking past each other because they are stubbornly not acknowledging (or even aware) or what the others are saying. Your comment leads me to believe that it's not a tactic of any kind, but rather an internal perceptual distortion, which can only be solved by effort on the part of the perceiver. Steelman your opponents, people. You can do so much better than this!

TheBeardKing 9y ago
There's obviously a spectrum of unscientific positions, take your pick: Extreme right position held by POTUS and the like: climate change is a hoax and humans aren't responsible for changes in climate. Chair of house science committe: Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant and climate isn't significantly sensitive to manmade emissions EPA: extreme whether events don't signify a trend, economic concerns are more important than regulations I'd be satisfied if politicians just quit playing scientists and started making policy decisions instead of steering/filtering scientific results.