Trump: Climate change scientists have 'political agenda'

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-17-2018, 04:39 PM)hollodero Wrote:  
Is that important? I just ask because to me, it seems like a critizism that can be found when looking for one. I also think it is completely unimportant how we call things, important is what we can acknowledge and what we should do about it. 

Would you say humans contribute to a warming earth and that we'd rather not do so? Or would you deny such dynamics or the importance to address them? That is the question behind it. The answer to that shapes the perception on pretty much anything around the topic, and your perception seems to be a critical one, hence I asked.

I mean, yes, it could be important. Maybe if we start talking about it in the way it actually is rather than a dramatized version, there will be less resistance towards bipartisan cooperation on the matter.

You're in a kitchen where someone is using the stove (the natural change), and someone yells at you to turn off the hot water you have running in the sink (human emissions) because you're single-handedly inducing the temperature to increase in the room and it's all the fault of your hot water and if you don't agree, you hate science.... You're going to be less cooperative than if they said: "Hey, I am using the stove here and it's already heating up this room, could you hold off on the hot water? It's making things worse."


The fact that you think it's completely unimportant how we call things is exactly why there's so many people dug in on one side and the other with very little movement. Terminology is important because it's how we can convey thoughts and ideas clearly without any misunderstandings. Taking the "who cares if it's accurate or right, fix this" approach doesn't seem like you even *want* others to come to your point of view. You would go about trying to convince exactly 0 people using that method.