5 ms·
The article didn't ask the question of whether people think climate change is problematic, it asked the question of whether people believe it is man made. The
by lukevdp 12y ago
The article didn't ask the question of whether people think climate change is problematic, it asked the question of whether people believe it is man made.
The relevant quote is: "When it comes to global warming, only 33 per cent expressed a high degree of confidence that it is “man made,” something the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has declared is all but certain."
- javert 12y agoIndeed, that is slightly different question. But I have the same opinion of it. 1. We know that climate constantly changes over long periods---Big Ice Age, Little Ice Age, various warm periods with dinosaurs in them, etc. 2. Ask anybody who is old if they've seen perceptible climate change in their particular area. Yes, there's weather, but the climate in NYC, Phoenix, San Francisco, and N for any place, is the same that it was 100 years ago. We also know that any scientist who comes out against climate change is ostracized and that it's career suicide, and we've seen it happen. And we know that climate change is a dogma for the left. That is why I rely on direct perceptual evidence (per 1 and 2) instead of "what scientists say" on this. Actually, I always rely on perceptual evidence---but having nukes and airplanes backs up the physicists, having telescopes backs up the astronomers, and so on. I have no opinion on matters of science for which I have no access to perceptual information (e.g. string theory).
- cam_l 12y ago"I always rely on perceptual evidence" so you are anti-intellectual.. or are you just trolling?
- javert 12y agoTo believe something without perceptual eveidence is to believe it blindly, just because somebody says so. We should not believe our intellectuals blindly, just because they say so. But that isn't an anti-intellectual stance. An anti-intellectual attitude would willfully dismiss what intellectuals say even when they do present perceptual evidence. As an aside, note that it is perceptual evidence that intellectuals rely on themselves to get their conclusions. This is particularly obvious in science (e.g. experimental method), but all actual knowledge is knowledge about reality and that means all actual knowledge is rooted in perceptual evidence.
- javert 12y agoI like how somebody downvoted this, but didn't bother to correct the mistake the presumably believed they saw in my reasoning. That is anti-intellectualism.
- peterashford 12y agoWell done for successfully confirming the article.
- javert 12y agoSo you can't make a rational argument about where I have made a mistake in my thinking? Yet you will condemn my thinking anyway? So you are willing to condemn based on your own prior beliefs, emotions or desires that you cannot actually validate? That is anti-intellectual. That is punishing virtue. That is failing to think and reason. That is what is destroying the world today.
- peterashford 12y agoI took a degree in Philosophy - I'm anything but anti-intellectual. Being intellectual doesn't mean feeding the trolls or suffering fools. I don't bother seriously debating the people who knock on my door to ask me about Jesus nor do I see fit to waste breath on climate change deniers or gun nuts: they're all religious beliefs of one stripe or another.