3 ms·
> If it "sounds" bad to work towards the most accurate understanding of an issue Nobody is making that argument. The issue is that the most accurate understand
by dlp211 6y ago
> If it "sounds" bad to work towards the most accurate understanding of an issue
Nobody is making that argument. The issue is that the most accurate understanding of an issue can not be realized until the issue is fully actualized. In other words, if we wait for the global atmospheric temp to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius to ensure our accuracy, it is far too late to do anything about it.
Uncertainty exists, yes, but that uncertainty is mostly in timescales and consequences of environmental outcomes, not the environmental outcomes themselves.
- standardUser 6y agoI'm reacting to a certain perspective that seems to be dominant when it comes to climate change discourse, wherein its common to take the most severe/pessimistic interpretation of the science and then categorize any less severe interpretations as insufficient. I think that's a poor approach and only serves to alienate people who may be looking for something a little more even-handed or closely aligned with the trends in the science (as opposed to clinging to the extremes). Having said that, I think that even the most optimistic interpretations of climate change are compelling enough to warrant immediate and dramatic action. But we should all strive for the most accurate interpretations of the science, which means being flexible and not dogmatic.
- dlp211 6y agoI don't know anything about biological factors of iq, but I'll take that kind of denialism, ie: all people are capable irrespective of their skin color, gender, other biological traits, over the former which will do lasting harm to persons all over the world and destroy massive amounts of wealth and productivity.