7 ms·
Peer-reviewed studies come to concrete conclusions such as "Ice volume in antarctica has decreased an estimated X% in the last X years." or "CO2 levels in the a
by sethjohn 19y ago
Peer-reviewed studies come to concrete conclusions such as "Ice volume in antarctica has decreased an estimated X% in the last X years." or "CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased X ppm in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa observatory." rather than sweeping statements such as "global warming is real".
There are admittedly some real cranks among the global warming skeptics, but I thought the arguments discussed in this article were intelligent, rational, and well-spoken.
- timr 19y agoIntelligent and rational? Really? He makes three coherent arguments: 1) Overzealous people have exaggerated/confused global warming with recent local weather phenomena, and this is wrong. 2) Predicting climate change is hard and our climate models are inaccurate. 3) Given the choice between reducing carbon emissions, and feeding starving children, we should favor feeding starving children. Arguments 1 is a straw man -- true, but irrelevant to the question of whether global warming is real and caused by humans. Argument 2 is also true, but is a red herring -- it fails to address the volumes of science that would suggest that, despite the difficulty of the problem, we have good reason to believe that there is a problem. Argument 3 relies on a false dichotomy -- there isn't a clear and necessary relationship between increased spending on climate change, and decreased spending on (say) HIV vaccines or mosquito nets or starving children.
- DanielBMarkham 19y ago(sigh)