Hey look, it's a climate change thread!

[masterpanthera_t]

(01-20-2017, 11:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: Good arguments are not "truths". Although I'm for free education, state expenses are a valid argument against free college. Whenever arguments are involved, I carry out my old virtual beam balance, try to attach the appropriate weight to all arguments (which is not 100% objective, of course not) on both sides, see where the balance leans for me and form my opinion. But it more or less stays an opinion.
That CC is true is not so much an "opinion" for me, like evolution is no opinion, or let's say gravity, to be polemic. But I see your follow-up, so that's just for mentioning the difference between preferrably nuanced debates vs. preferrably clear-cut black-and-white debates.

Let's just use the sense of "honest", then.  I'm talking about arguments based in honesty rather than wrong facts.  A sequence of logic where each one is based (or reasonably based) on something that can either be true or reasonably assumed to be true (of course it's not always possible for these conditions to be met), rather than spurious "facts".

Quote:Well, you're lazy then. :)
So, to close for now, many deniers now claim, ok there is some warming, but it's not all that bad, we can adapt. That is the one talking point I still accept as valid (although I do not agree, mostly because of the rist - and the oceans). This debate can be lead. Denying climate change, however, at this point starts to become treacherous. Just let me add this at the end: Deniers get paid. There are huge interest groups that still want to keep that narrative, they spend billions. When the denier's argument is "the CC scientists are greedy and invent CC so they can get money", it makes me mad to my bones. I mentioned already why, but still. The denial still has a huge lobby in your country (and as far as I know, ONLY in your country), your republican party being one of the lobbyists. Hence scientists are kept relevant which probably wouldn't be if the scientific world would do the evaluation of their works and findings (as they should). Voilá.

Fair enough.  Based on Dill's citations, and yours I am starting to lean towards the consensus, and will inform myself some more with these links.  The problem before was that I wasn't comfortable finding links from google which can lead one in many different directions.