Hey look, it's a climate change thread!

[hollodero]

(01-18-2017, 04:01 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Hopefully that clarifies it more, or maybe not. 

No we agree on many things. I brought up the gay marriage example for the very reason you stated: There is no "truth" in those questions. Should college be free (better example), there is also no "truth", just different answers, probably better and worse ones. But no plain "wrong" ones.

That does not apply for the question "Is climate change a hoax". NO. And there's no wiggle room for me. Because there is a true and false. Hence, a black and white.
That's the difference.

(01-18-2017, 04:01 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: but the crux of the problem for me, of picking sides is not so much only the scientific validity, it's all the policy decisions that need to be properly vetted. 

To illustrate: That's exactly what I do not really grasp. These are two different questions you muddle together. And they are to be separated.

a) Is there scientific validity behind CC? YES. (That's my answer) No nuance. 2+2=4, and it's not anything else if people oppose that view. And CC isn't less real when more people deny it. The deniers are not to be considered unless they have a solid case (which they don't), so they are just wrong on the issue. The existence of deniers doesn't make CC any less real. The scientific validity is there, period. That's my "black and white" point.

b) is the mere follow-up question. After acknowledging CC is real in principle and not a Chinese hoax, it's time to talk dealing with CC (apart from trying to evaluate the severity of CC, of course). And at this point it's not a 2+2=4 topic any longer, and clear-cut "truths" are starting to disappear. People need to be heard, other viewpoints need to be considered, concerns need to be addressed and factored into. And so on.

(01-18-2017, 04:01 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Personally, I would lean towards the scientists, but that isn't enough for me to make policy choices, unless I was certain that I understood it

Why not?
Why is believing the scientists "not enough" for you to allow talking about possible consequences? 
You can't possibly understand the full science behind CC, neither can I, we have experts for that. So when they provide the "technical" answers for those who couldn't understand (for they aren't experts), why not make decisions based on these answers and expertises? What more would you need to pick a side and talk possible policy changes? That is the point where I cannot follow. If you would say "I couldn't suggest anything policy-wise", then I'd fully understand. But you seem to avoid taking a stance on CC itself because you're uncertain about the resulting policies - and that's not a good reason to me.

So I'd suggest: Simply start with that question before thinking about anything further. 
Do you believe climate change is "real"? 
a) Yes
b) No
c) Don't know don't care.

 - What's it gonna be?