3 ms·

Sorry, climate change deniers are stupid and crazy and/or evil. I prefer to call them climate delusionals. Right now we have a choice to either try to amelior

Sorry, climate change deniers are stupid and crazy and/or evil. I prefer to call them climate delusionals. Right now we have a choice to either try to ameliorate climate change, or ignore it and watch civilisation collapse over the next century or so. It's a hard problem scientifically and politically, and the delusionals and their loby groups should receive nothing but contempt and derision.

lukifer 13y ago
I recently ran into a NOAA [1] scientist and talked to him briefly on the subject. He claimed that was there was effectively no one in the field that had any doubt about anthropogenic climate change, although there were many disputes about details. The few who do argue against it (he knew them by name) are very respected and intelligent, but have contrarian personalities, and tend to dispute specific models and argue in favor of uncertainty, rather than arguing that human behavior is definitively unrelated. Scientific communities are far from immune to taboos and group-think, and I think every idea deserves scrutiny and (true) skepticism, no matter how "settled". But while the science continues to iterate and refine, policy decisions should be based on weight of evidence, which is vastly in favor of human-caused climate change. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheri...
- singingfish 13y ago
  The simple fact of the matter is that something would have to be badly wrong with the laws of thermodynamics and the theory of chemical bonds in order for our understanding of human climate change to be sufficiently defective that the delusionals point of view was somehow more correct than the consensus view. Our understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and the theory of chemical bonds are basically what enable civilisation as we know it.

lukifer 13y ago

I recently ran into a NOAA [1] scientist and talked to him briefly on the subject. He claimed that was there was effectively no one in the field that had any doubt about anthropogenic climate change, although there were many disputes about details. The few who do argue against it (he knew them by name) are very respected and intelligent, but have contrarian personalities, and tend to dispute specific models and argue in favor of uncertainty, rather than arguing that human behavior is definitively unrelated. Scientific communities are far from immune to taboos and group-think, and I think every idea deserves scrutiny and (true) skepticism, no matter how "settled". But while the science continues to iterate and refine, policy decisions should be based on weight of evidence, which is vastly in favor of human-caused climate change. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheri...

singingfish 13y ago
The simple fact of the matter is that something would have to be badly wrong with the laws of thermodynamics and the theory of chemical bonds in order for our understanding of human climate change to be sufficiently defective that the delusionals point of view was somehow more correct than the consensus view. Our understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and the theory of chemical bonds are basically what enable civilisation as we know it.