Trump: Climate change scientists have 'political agenda'

[hollodero]

(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.

I think the climate and the facts don't care about which words to use. The politicization, sure, is a problem, that like everything in the US there's the one side taking one stance and the other side taking the opposite stance, and suddenly it's about the talking points and how they sound (and in the real end, it's about whose side someone's on anyway and nothing else really).
Humans not just attribute to the change. They attribute to the overall warmth of the planet, but no one would ever claim that the sun or other natural "stoves" don't play its part in warming the earth. The current (observable) change, that's us, in all probability exclusively us. Now certainly, that's up for debate maybe, but I wouldn't go as far as to use this example (not mentioning sun etc. as natural things that also warm the planet) to accuse scientists and politicians of over-dramatization. Also, even if it is, it doesn't matter, the climate certainly does not care. I am not on par with your view because most matters regarding CC are not so much an opinion as the desperate plea to accept facts and science.

Thing is, the facts in this case clearly and overwhelmingly support one side and dismiss the other side's arguments. Which has surprinsingly little influence though. I wouldn't know how to debate things in a reasonable manner with folk that believe CC is an Al Gore scam and the proof for that is a snowball (or all the other hilarious stuff the "opposide side" of the CC debate brings to the table, which is 99% absurd). In that sense, I have to say you saying it "could" be important isn't quite enough for me, and that's not based on an agenda or a political view, but on facts.