Climate skeptics… I’m not afraid of skepticism and I’m calling you out! Defend your position or admit you don’t have one. The time for hiding behind the politics, pundits of Fox News, financial interests, and the general propaganda is over. Saying you’re skeptical is not good enough. Politics and pundits and propaganda… Oh my!
Winning the war of public opinion does not make an idea scientific or unscientific. Science is not a democracy.
There are only 4 fundamental positions available on (human influenced) climate change. Choose honestly and choose wisely:
- Scientific Agreement. “I’ve looked at the science. I understand the science. After doing so, I find the science to be reasonable AND testable AND verifiable.”
- Scientific Disagreement. “I’ve looked at the science. I understand the science. After doing so, I find the science to be unreasonable OR untestable OR unverifiable.”
- Uninformed Agreement. “Enough people I respect or trust say they agree with the science so I’m willing to believe it.”
- Uninformed Disagreement. “Enough people I respect or trust say they disagree with the science that I don’t believe it.”
Yes, there are nuances. It is quite possible that one has looked at the science and attempts to draw conclusions without understanding the science. Sorry, those people are in either of the “Uninformed” categories until understanding is reached. Only position 2, Scientific Disagreement, qualifies one to claim the position of “Climate Skeptic”. It is useful to engage in conversation on grounds that meet the test of scientific understanding and scientific disagreement.
When either of the uninformed groups talk about climate change, they are simply spreading propaganda. Science does not recognize anecdotal suppositions. Propaganda wars against science have been fought and won in the past. However, the world is not flat. The universe does not orbit the earth. Bloodletting does not cure “The Plague”.
The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees on the science of climate change. It may be true that “some scientists disagree”, but the burden of proof is on those scientists to make their case. Established science stands until a successful attack is made against it. That is the way science works.
What if the climate scientists are wrong and we create a cleaner planet and a better economy for nothing? You tell me.
reuben
5 months ago
i love this.
but some people are just dumb. no, a lot of people are just dumb. and they go with position #4.
but, while on the correct side of the argument, position #3 is not much better.
Andrew
5 months ago
I <3 skepticism and try to approach all things with skepticism. However, The abdication of responsibility on this issue is a problem. You can't just say you're a skeptic, avoid considering available facts, and expect your views to be respected. Regardless of the issue in question and, as you point out, regardless of the side of the issue you take. That's not skepticism… It's laziness or denial or some other less than savory pejorative.