Forestatement: read the ****ing post, it's not long. If you want just another generic exchange of dull climate change talking points, that is not what this is about. Irs not about Trump's views on climate change, nor AL Gore's. Read the short ****ing op. Traditionally, students have been encouraged to challenge authority and societal norms. The idea is quite simple - if they can't stand up to scutiny, then they're not worth their salt. Students are often praised for challenging existing power structures and authorities. We're supposed to question these things - it's not that we are supposed to oppose them, we're suppose to be skeptical. Now change over to climate change, and suddenly questioning the authorities is moronic. People who question the standard narrative are insulted by those who do not. THE WAY THAT MANY BELIEVERS OF CLIMATE CHANGE TREAT THOSE WHO ARE EVEN SKEPTICAL OF IT IS AKIN TO THE WAY THAT CATHOLIC ZEALOTS IN CENTURIES PAST TREATED "HERETICS" AND THOSE WHO WERE SKEPTICAL OF CHURCH ORTHODOXY OR AUTHORITY. Despite some resident wing bats trying to tell me what my opinion is (despite my own daying otherwise), I say climate change is real. Global warming is real. But the way that believers of climate change, especially many here, approach it is wrong. If the way these people "discuss" climate change was the way that people in philosophy class discussed things, then you'd have fans of Hume being insulted for being so. It's really this simple folks - being skeptical is healthy. If you want to sway people, clear and convincing evidence is the best remedy. If you're a petulant, childish little **** trying to remedy some personal shortcomings and feel better about yourself, then sure, go ahead and just insult anyone who disagrees with you and make snide remarks when someone is simply skeptical of something you know more about.
I believe the situation is exactly opposite from your opinions. Facts: 98% of climatologists believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. The percentage of posts for and against the AGW is probably 50-50. The publicity against the AGW theories is astounding, as big money from the fossil fuel lobbies continues to attack the theories. The same thing happened with tobacco in the 1960s.
^clearly either didn't read or misread the OP. Rather than contradicting literally ANYTHING in my post, your post was just one example of one of the things I talked about.
I think there is really no argument, the weather most decently changes. What we consider to be a regions climate to be is changing and does not stay the same. The question is why? Are we doing it? Or does it just not simple stay stagnant and varies? We know the earth has gone through many heating and cooling cycles, so what makes this one different. Why is it when someone question the global warming people about sun spot activity and volcanic activity, are lack of, they are completely shot down as flat earthers. I just find it hard to believe that the people who use climate models that are not that reliable in the short term can makes the claims they are making about weather 20, 30, and 40 years out.
"The problem with approaches to climate change" I have read the OP 3 times now and I am still trying to figure it out! I must be slow today! Let me summarize what I have gleaned and see if that is correct before continuing. 1. The OP appears to be understandably irate about the way Climate Change discussions occur. 2. The OP makes the point about healthy skepticism and bemoans that it appears to be lacking when it comes to Climate Change. (At least that is the stated opinion of the OP from what I can gather.) 3. The OP clearly stipulates that Climate Change/Global Warming is real in the OP opinion. 4. The OP provides "ground rules" for civil discourse regarding Climate Change threads. I might have missed something but that is the essence of the content of the OP in my opinion. Now in the PF rules the OP is supposed to set the topic and the tone for the discussion. It must contain the OP's opinions and/or questions to establish a basis for respectful discussion. And that is where I am at a loss! With all due respect to the OP I am not at all sure exactly what is the topic and what questions, if any, need to be discussed? If the topic is "the problem with approaches to climate change" then was the OP's opinion/question in the section about the RCC and heretics? Or is the topic about the approach to discussions about climate change that degenerate for the reasons that the OP expounded upon in the section about personal shortcomings? Not trying to be critical here because I truly don't want to derail this thread by making the wrong assumption about what the OP is trying to accomplish. I agree with the OP on all of the points provided and it is indeed worth having a discussion on what should and should not be allowed when it comes to trying to have respectful debates about Climate Change IMO. Personally I tend to avoid Climate Change threads because the "noise" from the climate change deniers makes them not worth the trouble. In some of them one might as well be trying to have a rational debate in the Conspiracy forums. (If it was up to me all sources on Climate Change must include who funded the study being quoted.) So this response is just to try and elicit a little clarity from the OP as to what exactly is the topic. TYIA
Good post. I tried to read between the lines, and attempted to answer the concerns, and the OP responded very harshly with criticism.
It was your post and the OP response that made me hesitate to assume that I understood the OP even after reading it 3 times. Hopefully the OP will clarify their expectations and we can proceed productively from that point forward.
