3 ms·

It's well understood that even if we stopped all carbon emissions now, the warming trend would continue for a while. Even if it were not so, why would the comm

It's well understood that even if we stopped all carbon emissions now, the warming trend would continue for a while. Even if it were not so, why would the comment of one random netizen make you question the beliefs of all the people who do follow the science? Who can read comments like yours without wondering if all climate change deniers are all a bit disengenous?

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> why would the comment of one rando It wouldn't. There's been a concerted effort for decades to do anything to keep the discourse from shifting to geoengineering. The same sort of unintelligent counter-arguments are used for it that the people who are overly concerned about the economy use. > of all the people who do follow the science? Nothing I have ever learned about science has ever said anything about "following science". It is a principle of science I have never heard even a hint of. I have heard of people following religion. All the time. It seems to be one of their favorite words. > Who can read comments like yours without wondering if all climate change deniers are all a bit disengenous? If a grifter goes after you trying to pull a fast one, why would you have any obligation to be honest with them? In fact, if they start trying to harangue you about honesty, that's just another part of their grift. Geoengineering is something I've never opposed. We can and probably should do it regardless of whether you guys are right about climate change. If it's too cold, make it warmer, if it's too hot, make it cooler. The only reason to not do it is if you see an opportunity to seize political power by allowing a crisis to continue. If it gets solved (especially too early), you might not stay in charge (or in this case, never quite make it there in the first place).
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  "Following the science" just means paying attention to what science is telling us at the moment. You can also follow baseball or music or any other ongoing activity. It's a really common phrase, and is not a scientific principle.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    > "Following the science" just means paying attention to what science is telling us at the moment. Science doesn't tell us anything. It's just a loose set of methods for investigating how the universe works. When you anthropomorphize it, it's kind of dumb and sounds a little like you're trying to deify it. Don't follow science. Perform it. Read it. Think about it. Don't believe in it. It's not a religion. It's not your young child that needs you to believe in it. Instead, suspect the truth while remaining skeptical. Know it. Learn it. Using emotionally charged words takes you further away from what it's all about. > It's a really common phrase, But also a really bad one.
    - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
      Following a subject matter has nothing to do with belief. You can follow something without believing in it at all. It is not a bad phrase. You seem to be confusing it with the idea of following a religion. In that context, following has a different meaning.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        Your own original comment was (I checked, to make sure it wasn't some third party joining in on our fray): > make you question the beliefs of all the people who do follow the science? It seems that, even in your own head, these two things are related very closely, the beliefs and the "following", to the point that this later assertion that they "have nothing to do with each other" is... just weird. "Follow" is just a bad word. In the most generous way I am able to read your rebuttal, it seems that you may have (inadvertently) confused two separate meanings. It would be better if you were to excise it from your vocabulary. It would allow you to think more clearly, and to not make mistakes like this one. Or should I go with the other, less generous, interpretations?
        MattPalmer1086 3y ago
        When I used the word belief, I was responding to your original comment which said: "without wondering if the climate change believers". At this point, I don't think we are having a productive conversation. Interpret it any way you like.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

> why would the comment of one rando It wouldn't. There's been a concerted effort for decades to do anything to keep the discourse from shifting to geoengineering. The same sort of unintelligent counter-arguments are used for it that the people who are overly concerned about the economy use. > of all the people who do follow the science? Nothing I have ever learned about science has ever said anything about "following science". It is a principle of science I have never heard even a hint of. I have heard of people following religion. All the time. It seems to be one of their favorite words. > Who can read comments like yours without wondering if all climate change deniers are all a bit disengenous? If a grifter goes after you trying to pull a fast one, why would you have any obligation to be honest with them? In fact, if they start trying to harangue you about honesty, that's just another part of their grift. Geoengineering is something I've never opposed. We can and probably should do it regardless of whether you guys are right about climate change. If it's too cold, make it warmer, if it's too hot, make it cooler. The only reason to not do it is if you see an opportunity to seize political power by allowing a crisis to continue. If it gets solved (especially too early), you might not stay in charge (or in this case, never quite make it there in the first place).

MattPalmer1086 3y ago
"Following the science" just means paying attention to what science is telling us at the moment. You can also follow baseball or music or any other ongoing activity. It's a really common phrase, and is not a scientific principle.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  > "Following the science" just means paying attention to what science is telling us at the moment. Science doesn't tell us anything. It's just a loose set of methods for investigating how the universe works. When you anthropomorphize it, it's kind of dumb and sounds a little like you're trying to deify it. Don't follow science. Perform it. Read it. Think about it. Don't believe in it. It's not a religion. It's not your young child that needs you to believe in it. Instead, suspect the truth while remaining skeptical. Know it. Learn it. Using emotionally charged words takes you further away from what it's all about. > It's a really common phrase, But also a really bad one.
  - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
    Following a subject matter has nothing to do with belief. You can follow something without believing in it at all. It is not a bad phrase. You seem to be confusing it with the idea of following a religion. In that context, following has a different meaning.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      Your own original comment was (I checked, to make sure it wasn't some third party joining in on our fray): > make you question the beliefs of all the people who do follow the science? It seems that, even in your own head, these two things are related very closely, the beliefs and the "following", to the point that this later assertion that they "have nothing to do with each other" is... just weird. "Follow" is just a bad word. In the most generous way I am able to read your rebuttal, it seems that you may have (inadvertently) confused two separate meanings. It would be better if you were to excise it from your vocabulary. It would allow you to think more clearly, and to not make mistakes like this one. Or should I go with the other, less generous, interpretations?
      - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
        When I used the word belief, I was responding to your original comment which said: "without wondering if the climate change believers". At this point, I don't think we are having a productive conversation. Interpret it any way you like.