6 ms·
>I don't follow Scott Adams, but my understanding from when he started talking about that subject is that he is not denying climate change We don't need debate
by dontbenebby 8y ago
>I don't follow Scott Adams, but my understanding from when he started talking about that subject is that he is not denying climate change
We don't need debate on climate change. There are not "sides". (Unless you count reality and magical thinking as "sides".)
- edmundsauto 8y agoWe absolutely need debate and skeptics on climate change. Debate doesn't mean adversarial; it means questioning the evidence and possible interventions. If we aren't debating on climate change, how do we decide where to put resources to reduce emissions and clean up existing pollution?
- dontbenebby 8y ago>Debate doesn't mean adversarial; it means questioning the evidence Questioning the evidence of climate change is de facto adversarial. The evidence is overwhelming and beyond question. No intelligent, sane person arguing in good faith would argue otherwise.
- edmundsauto 8y agoYour derision and perspective are more appropriate for a religious zealot than a scientific thinker. Skepticism is the heart of science. I have not invested enough time in understanding the currently best climate models. I must, therefore, take a skeptical approach and question conclusions drawn from that evidence. Especially so for a projection. For the level of assurance you seem to have, I assume that you have rerun models yourself, have a deep understanding of complex systems and statistics, and done other climactic work? Even that is skepticism applied and questions asked.