3 ms·
Without taking a position either way, my understanding of the skepticism is not that warming is not occuring, but rather the degree to which things that humanit
by tx21 8y ago
Without taking a position either way, my understanding of the skepticism is not that warming is not occuring, but rather the degree to which things that humanity can control influence that warming (0% to 100%).
- Retric 8y agoIt's not just a any single coherent opposition to global warming. You get everything, including I am sure a non trivial group of people think the climate is cooling due to man made effects to people who think man made warming exists, but it's not going to have a meaningful impact. It's not a question of evidence at this point, it's a question of the limitless realms of ignorance.
- ceejayoz 8y ago> my understanding of the skepticism is not that warming is not occuring That's a fairly recent goalpost move as "warming is not occurring" has become an untenable position.
- jimjimjim 8y agoyep. First it was: it's not happening. Then: but how much? Now: but can we affect it? Soon it'll be: are we sure it's a bad thing? Then it'll be: it's bad but it's that other guy's fault.
- flukus 8y agoAnd then it's back to "it's not happening". Contrarianism is a mouse wheel, not a ladder.
- kefabean 8y agoThis is exactly my experience talking to contrarians on the subject. Their viewpoint shifts subtly over time whilst continuing to oppose the consensus.
- tx21 8y agoI don't think that's right, though it may be your view. Temperatures have in general been warming since the Maunder Minimum 400 years ago. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg/800px-Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Ca... Clarification edit: Meaning I think there is a better argument in the polemic (I'm not suggesting the answer)