4 ms·
As you have pointed out, good "faith" is in short supply in this conversation because there are extreme elements that will go to great lengths to maintain the s
by sulam 8y ago
As you have pointed out, good "faith" is in short supply in this conversation because there are extreme elements that will go to great lengths to maintain the status quo, despite all the evidence that it is long-term unmaintainable.
If you want to talk in good faith with me personally, there are a few things you have to accept as ground truth:
1) Human behavior has caused a change to the climate that is measurable and has real impacts to the environment.
2) Those changes are complex and driving systems in ways we do not fully understand, any more than we fully understood the systems before we started adding climate change into the equation. Despite this lack of understanding of all of its effects, this does not mean #1 is somehow disproven.
You tripped over #1 -- if we don't agree about that we will have a problem having a productive discussion.
Another commenter in this thread tripped over #2 -- if someone wants to litigate the minutiae of every historical prediction from climate scientists we will have a problem having a productive discussion.
- ThomPete 8y agoYou took only the middle part of that sentence and ignored the whole sentence which is quite a different meaning than the one you tried to attach to me. Here it is in it's whole: "Many of us understand very well that the climate is changing and that humans might have something to do with it, we just don't know to what extent." So yes I agree we have an impact just not sure how much and what it will mean and if you want to debate that with me personally you either prove me wrong or agree with that. Furthermore, I wrote plenty of other things that should make it obvious I am not in any specific camp but interested in a larger context than just debating climate change true/false silliness. Human flourishing, how to also get people out of poverty, the ability to control nature more than it has historically controlled us etc they are all important issues and climate change doesn't mean we should just ignore those. Yet that's exactly what people do when discussing climate. They ignore all the other things that are also important and also affecting real people right now as we speak. So I frankly don't see you doing anything but not reading me in good faith. But bygones.
- sulam 8y ago"Well, the defendant was clearly present at the time of the crime. It is clear he might have something to do with it, we just don't know to what extent." That statement (unmoored from the climate change context) in its most literal interpretation says something along the lines of "the range of possibilities is from 0 to 100". I don't accept that 0 is in the distribution, and will not agree with any statement that can be most literally interpreted in that way. Maybe that's not what you meant, it sounds like it's not -- so great, problem solved. But as written, that is the most literal reading.
- ThomPete 8y agoReading anything online, without knowing the person, literally, sounds like exactly the problem with most online debates. Instead of inquiring about what was meant you just assumed. Perhaps we should start with giving other the benefit of the doubt rather than just having "your criteria" without any context especially when you actually got quite a lot of context that would indicate it wasn't at all the case.