3 ms·

My perspective on this is that, at least for people like myself, believing or disbelieving in human caused climate change is completely an act of faith. We can

My perspective on this is that, at least for people like myself, believing or disbelieving in human caused climate change is completely an act of faith. We can look at the situation, try to wade through the journal magazines, blogs etc to find a reality behind it. But what we get, unless we have massive time to invest, is basically all we get. We pick a perspective on it that we feel defines us somehow, or fits with our worldview, and then dig in, surrounding ourselves with media that fits the image. I believe in global warming because it seems that the interests backing the antiglobalwarming campaign have massive financial motivations for doing so. Also, as an avid urban cyclists anything that gets more cars off the street or at least regulates emissions, and pushes people towards smaller cars. I trust the government and universities more than I trust big corporations and I know corporations are absolutely willing to pay people to find/make science that fits their preconceptions. So in short I don't know. I took a guess, and I did so after weighing what I assume to be the motivations of the actors, and the outcomes if either side is wrong. If we prepare for global warming it will turn the world into a better place whether or not there is such a thing as global warming.

hugh3 15y ago
So in short I don't know. I took a guess, and I did so after weighing what I assume to be the motivations of the actors Well, that's precisely the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do, when you don't have enough evidence, is to say "I don't know". You can then go on to say "I think the preponderance of evidence is on one side or another", but you certainly shouldn't go round believing things. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
- blendergasket 15y ago
  I don't have all the evidence. I weigh the evidence I have, and believe the preponderance of evidence is on one side or another. You call it think, but really there's no difference between that and believing. If you think so you're living a lie that perpetuates this masquerade of believing we're partaking in science and in effect elevates this swinish political discussion to the level of science.

hugh3 15y ago

So in short I don't know. I took a guess, and I did so after weighing what I assume to be the motivations of the actors Well, that's precisely the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do, when you don't have enough evidence, is to say "I don't know". You can then go on to say "I think the preponderance of evidence is on one side or another", but you certainly shouldn't go round believing things. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

blendergasket 15y ago
I don't have all the evidence. I weigh the evidence I have, and believe the preponderance of evidence is on one side or another. You call it think, but really there's no difference between that and believing. If you think so you're living a lie that perpetuates this masquerade of believing we're partaking in science and in effect elevates this swinish political discussion to the level of science.