Hey look, it's a climate change thread!

[masterpanthera_t]

(01-18-2017, 05:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.


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.


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?

Well first of all, there is no "truth" in what you outlined, but that's not what I'm referring to.  I'm talking about the "truth" of logical or sequential assumptions that can be used to reach a policy implementation.  I may not be able to answer whether college should be free with anything more than my opinion, but if you can put together a series of assumptions (which can be backed up or "true"), which can build on each other to show why maybe this would be a good idea for the country then that is an informed opinion with some "truth" to it, vs. simply saying "college costs too much, therefore should be free".  Not that this is the argument being made, but I'm talking about the truth of claims which are then used to reach a policy decision (it seems to me that neither party really does a great deal of explaining how these claims are true).  

As far as CC is concerned, I think you and I are in agreement, except for this:  I'm saying that since I'm not well versed on the subject, I don't know if there's a scientific consensus.  All your other arguments presuppose a scientific consensus and then pose a question of "do you believe?"  My point is if you show me that there's a scientific consensus (not saying that there isn't), then we can move towards the implementation side of discussion.  So, I, personally cannot say one way or another, unless this can be shown.  It's possible it's there, and I'm just too lazy to look for it.  I'm simply saying that if I am not able to get to that point, I would be voting for policy decisions simply based on faith, which I'd rather not do when it affects other people (especially even more than me).   There are certain other scientific principles I do not understand thoroughly, but take them for granted as they have been scientifically accepted by more or less everyone (things that I learn in school and College etc.).  Possibly this acceptance needs to become mainstream before I myself would be comfortable with voting for policy decisions, but even if that's not the case, I need to be convinced that there is a scientific consensus (Again, not saying that there isn't, but to my untrained eye there's a chance b.s. arguments can still look like valid counters).  I'll put it this way, if you can link up some articles which confirm a scientific consensus, I will consider it seriously.