3 ms·
Some time back there was definitely a loud "denier" voice, but I think this is gone from all but the fringe. The disagreement today isn't about the science, bu
by CWuestefeld 4y ago
Some time back there was definitely a loud "denier" voice, but I think this is gone from all but the fringe.
The disagreement today isn't about the science, but about policy - what should be done about it, what's the cost/benefit analysis, and so forth. There's a sizable faction that wants to avoid this conversation by yelling about "Science(tm)!", which cuts off the actual policy discussion before it can get started.
edit: typo
- alexb_ 4y agoI definitely do agree with this. This is a very important issue that quite obviously can have many different viewpoints.
- betwixthewires 4y agoI think the disagreement is about the extent to which these events will be damaging first and foremost, and policy discussions stem from that. I know plenty of people who concur "carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas" and all that comes with that, but don't believe that humans are going to destroy the planet within 8 years or whatever the doomsday date is nowadays. That's the big driver for climate change denial, not science skepticism, but over the top fearmongering rhetoric by the public figures championing climate change. The people actually trying to solve this problem are doing a disservice with their dramaticism. They discredit themselves with it, and unfortunately their cause will suffer because of it.