10-17-2018, 05:03 PM
(10-17-2018, 04:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 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.
This is hilarious. The deniers have been forced to change their story from "It isn't happening", to "Its happening but humans are not contributing", to "Its happening and we are contributing but only a little" and they accuse the other side of taking unreasonable positions.
Humans have done a lot more than just run hot water in a room warmed by a stove. We have burned entire mountain ranges of coal and seas of oil. We have pumped billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere at the same time that we defoliated millions of acres of forest.
