4 ms·
This is a fair perspective. I propose that the scientific community's collective stance is not that this is a wild deviation from typical variations, but that a
by _archon_ 12y ago
This is a fair perspective. I propose that the scientific community's collective stance is not that this is a wild deviation from typical variations, but that a significant change will result in unfavorable consequences for humanity as a species. Such change is occurring based on the data we have available to us. If we can mitigate or delay such change, we will be better off for it. This leads to emission controls, etc.
I believe the cause for concern among the proponents of awareness and regulation is that a notable change is happening, and we desperately want the status quo. Whether or not this change falls within normal variations is irrelevant to this argument.
- belovedeagle 12y agoThis is a refreshingly honest analysis. Personally I'm not convinced by the need to maintain the status quo, however. We can read all about 'X species going extinct in Y years', 'Average temperatures will go up by .X degrees in Y years', and 'X miles of coastline will be destroyed in Y years', and yet none of this explains /why/ these are undesirable outcomes. The unstated premise is that "change is bad", which is a strange position to take, to say the least.
- dirktheman 12y agoLiving in a country where a large part is located below sea level, I can assure you that a rising water level concerns me. But you're right, in the grander scheme of things global warming isn't necessarily a good or a bad thing, it just is.