2 ms·

I want to ask you something, but first let me say that I've noticed a pattern among those who deny the world is getting warmer. When people use scientific data

I want to ask you something, but first let me say that I've noticed a pattern among those who deny the world is getting warmer. When people use scientific data to argue it is getting warmer, the deniers often pull out personal anecdotes to the the contrary. And then when there are personal anecdotes supporting warming, the deniers often claim the statistics are not there. So let me ask you, what sort of evidence would persuade you that the world is getting warmer? Or is it your view that it is simply impossible, so no evidence could persuade you?

marcoperaza 9y ago
I lean pretty strongly toward agreeing with anthropogenic climate change. I can't be any more certain than that since I'm not a climate scientist and I'm depending on the "consensus" of a highly politicized area, and I have seen, in areas I am more knowledgeable of, how truth can become the victim of politics. In any case, the risks of climate change are high enough to warrant action. I tend to disagree with the commonly proposed solutions, which tend to involve global redistribution of wealth and loss of advantage for the United States and other Western powers. From what I know, renewed investment in nuclear energy is a required part of a solution that doesn't squander America's lead over our competitors. A shift to electric cars also seems essential. I also think you could persuade climate change skeptics (or deniers or whatever you want to call them) of the utility of these policies in terms of things other than climate change, such as energy sovereignty[1], environmental cleanliness, and the potential for breakthroughs like fusion energy or extremely efficient fission reactors. This would probably be more effective than demonizing them. [1] So that our economic security is not tied to the stability and friendliness of Middle East regimes. So that Russia cannot extort Europe with its natural gas supply.

marcoperaza 9y ago

I lean pretty strongly toward agreeing with anthropogenic climate change. I can't be any more certain than that since I'm not a climate scientist and I'm depending on the "consensus" of a highly politicized area, and I have seen, in areas I am more knowledgeable of, how truth can become the victim of politics. In any case, the risks of climate change are high enough to warrant action. I tend to disagree with the commonly proposed solutions, which tend to involve global redistribution of wealth and loss of advantage for the United States and other Western powers. From what I know, renewed investment in nuclear energy is a required part of a solution that doesn't squander America's lead over our competitors. A shift to electric cars also seems essential. I also think you could persuade climate change skeptics (or deniers or whatever you want to call them) of the utility of these policies in terms of things other than climate change, such as energy sovereignty[1], environmental cleanliness, and the potential for breakthroughs like fusion energy or extremely efficient fission reactors. This would probably be more effective than demonizing them. [1] So that our economic security is not tied to the stability and friendliness of Middle East regimes. So that Russia cannot extort Europe with its natural gas supply.