44 ms·
We shouldn't use "believe" and "don't believe" terminology when we talk about scientific facts. It is more proper to say that people refuse to accept the climat
by mixedbit 7y ago
We shouldn't use "believe" and "don't believe" terminology when we talk about scientific facts. It is more proper to say that people refuse to accept the climate change.
- ekianjo 7y agoEven if you accept it, it does not mean you have much power to act on it. The largest emitters of CO2 in the world are by far India and China and Australia is a tiny country with a tiny footprint in comparison.
- anoncake 7y agoYou can apply that argument to every person or group. I'm just one person, my individual carbon footprint is neglible – let the other 7 billion deal with it!
- fennecfoxen 7y agoI'm not sure that deliberate ideological message-control efforts of this sort actually meaningfully contribute to understanding. They seem unlikely to actually change what anyone thinks, somewhat reinforce the perception that climate change is a lie spread as part of a political conspiracy to control people.
- pdonis 7y agoThe observation that the climate is changing is a scientific fact. The hypothesis that draconian reduction or even elimination of CO2 emissions by humans will stop the climate from changing is not a scientific fact. It's the opposite: it's a hypothesis based on computer models that have been falsified by the data.
- jbattle 7y agoI'd prefer language like "I [am/am not] persuaded by the evidence I've seen" Small difference but I think it properly orients the discussion around evidence