If you read my original comment more closely you’ll see I have no trouble with the complexity of the reality of climate change, and what I am taking issue with is the annoying method of communication of predictions about that reality, communication that resembles nothing so much as systematized crying wolf. I’m not even asking for it to stop, or threatening to spitefully disbelieve in climate change because of it, I’m just asking for it to be served with a spoonful of kindness.
I don’t have anything productive or polite to say about you misinterpreting my comment as climate denial and then mocking me for having a simplistic mental model.
You seem to completely accept that man made climate change is real. How did you get there? Which strong science based arguments have you seem that convinced you?
Or more importantly, how do you know you have not fallen into the propaganda trap?
That's not an argument that deals with whether climate change is real or not – but whether it's reasonable to believe it is, based on one's own lack of understanding in combination with making (reasonable) assumptions.
Every one in academia working towards proving that climate change is real is also working towards proving it's not real.
In fact, if you go into it with a pre-conceived bias that disagrees with everything everybody else has seen, you'll be laughed out of it. You should be laughed out of it too if your bias aligned with what everybody else has seen.
Some people are just super stubborn about it because they don't want to be wrong. I used to work with a guy who said climate change wasn't real, then after about a year of being the only person at work with that viewpoint, he accepted that it was real, but with the caveat that it's a good thing. He said that man-made global warming was going to help hold off the next ice age, so warming the planet now will pre-emptively save lives in the future. That makes no sense though, because we're experiencing extreme weather and mass extinction right now, and the next ice age isn't supposed to happen for over a thousand years.
I assume you know plenty of places that argue like you do so I will give you a couple of other places that actually discuss this with both and cons.
But keep in mind the debate isn't actually whether climate change is real. It is how accurate are the predictions and what if anything should we be worried about.
Just so we are clear on the premise here. You will find very few people who say that climate change is not real that's not the discussion and it's never really been the discussion.
So here are a couple of good debates that lay out some of the skepticism.
I would also recommend reading Alex Epstein's book The moral case for fossil fuel: he offers another way to think about this problem which is also what I am trying to get across. The climate debate we are having is mostly political and thus about priorities rather than about science.
You've been rejecting climate change evidence for years - your mind is clearly already made up. Nobody on this comment board is going to be able to convince you of how to reasonably react to overwhelming evidence. "Convincing" will happen when you can accept reality for what it is, instead of rejecting it for your own sadistic individualistic pleasure.
Please re-read my comment. I'm not denying climate change, only expressing my disapproval of how flawed arguments in favor of climate change gets a free pass.
reply