4 ms·

These conversations are endless and repetitive. Both sides are fully entrenched in their positions and I don't know how we can come back to having productive di

These conversations are endless and repetitive. Both sides are fully entrenched in their positions and I don't know how we can come back to having productive discussions on this topic when both sides have already decided what they believe to be true. How can we talk about anything when we don't agree on the facts?

amoorthy 9y ago
To be honest, I'm learning a lot from the comments on this thread. I appreciate climate change skeptics speaking up because I know it's not a popular position to take. I also appreciate where everyone has added highly credible citations to back up their claims. For those who struggle to understand skeptics point of view take a look at Michael Crichton's interview on Charlie Rose. This was the first time I came to appreciate the views of climate change skeptics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0 Essentially he says yes the planet is warming but the impact that will have is unclear and models suggesting a high degree of certainty are not being honest. (I don't think this is the same FUD of cigarette companies as some have suggested above). An even quicker way to understand skeptics is to read this blog: http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2017/6/6/the-tribes-of-climate-change http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2017/6/6/the-tribes-of-c.... The 5 points on climate change, and where skeptics vs. scientists differ, is clearly laid out. Essentially liberals and conservatives largely agree on the facts but differ on the policies that can help.
- liberte82 9y ago
  I guess I feel it would be easier to trust the motives of skeptics if they weren't constantly shifting the goalposts and fighting the data. A couple years ago there was plenty of denial that climate change was happening at all. Now the data has made that position indefensible so now they seek to cast doubt on what the impacts will be. I'm all for good science and skepticism, and for legitimate issues with the models. But all of this reeks of the same type of "science" that tobacco companies bankrolled to fight the lung cancer findings decades ago. Their motivations just make it very difficult to take them seriously.

amoorthy 9y ago

To be honest, I'm learning a lot from the comments on this thread. I appreciate climate change skeptics speaking up because I know it's not a popular position to take. I also appreciate where everyone has added highly credible citations to back up their claims. For those who struggle to understand skeptics point of view take a look at Michael Crichton's interview on Charlie Rose. This was the first time I came to appreciate the views of climate change skeptics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0 Essentially he says yes the planet is warming but the impact that will have is unclear and models suggesting a high degree of certainty are not being honest. (I don't think this is the same FUD of cigarette companies as some have suggested above). An even quicker way to understand skeptics is to read this blog: http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2017/6/6/the-tribes-of-climate-change http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2017/6/6/the-tribes-of-c.... The 5 points on climate change, and where skeptics vs. scientists differ, is clearly laid out. Essentially liberals and conservatives largely agree on the facts but differ on the policies that can help.

liberte82 9y ago
I guess I feel it would be easier to trust the motives of skeptics if they weren't constantly shifting the goalposts and fighting the data. A couple years ago there was plenty of denial that climate change was happening at all. Now the data has made that position indefensible so now they seek to cast doubt on what the impacts will be. I'm all for good science and skepticism, and for legitimate issues with the models. But all of this reeks of the same type of "science" that tobacco companies bankrolled to fight the lung cancer findings decades ago. Their motivations just make it very difficult to take them seriously.