Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 2 months ago

How much of climate skepticism is based on the inability to think critically and how much is just laziness ?

To be a skeptic is to continue living life as is guilt free, the ideology de jour of the perpetually horizontal


@busterwasmycat. You are a classic example, why did you think people thought the climate never changes? Try listening instead of making things up

3 Answers

  • Dirac
    Lv 4
    2 months ago

    Certainly a lot of it. When you read the arguments by the denial crowd it's clear they're not well trained in logic, and they're recycling arguments that were refuted decades ago. I certainly know what you mean about laziness, but that's not quite it. Look at the troll, the guy asks dozens of his nonsensical questions each day, he creates silly little memes, etc., so is really lazy? He simply refuses to put any effort into learning the science. The so-called "skeptics" spend a LOT of time learning wrong things. For the same effort, they could learn actual science, but they won't because they're worried it will challenge their politics.

  • David
    Lv 6
    2 months ago

    Buster asks reasonable questions without seeming to realize that these questions were first asked 50 years ago and have been answered, in many ways, ever since. 

    There seems to be a myth that global warming concern is based on noticing a correlation between CO2 and temperature, by a ragtag group of tree huggers who don't understand that correlation is not causation. In reality the attribution of the warming trend since the mid 20th century to human activities is known from many independent lines of empirical, theoretical, and paleoclimatological evidence. 

    The fact that the climate changed before for other reasons does not disprove this any more than evidence of deer dying 10,000 years ago would "prove" that a rifle cannot kill a deer. 

  • 2 months ago

    I hate to say this, but it strikes me that a lot of the people who accept the climate crisis idea are also ones who fail to do any true evaluation of the merits of the argument.  Climate is definitely changing, but did you actually expect it the stay the same?  Must change be bad?  If so, or even if not, will bad dominate and will all be affected in a bad manner?  What is the actual contribution of human activity to the current change?  Has it made climate change in a way that it would have otherwise changed, or does this human contribution exacerbate the intensity of that change?

    Can you accept that there are large proportions of folks, without regard to their actual professed position, who support such a position because that is what their social group favors, whether wacko deniers or wacko alarmists?  Or that it is possible for a person to look at the facts and the theories, compare predictions to real changes (test the predictions) and conclude that there are some major faults with the primary claims of the AGW hypothesis?

    The politicization of the issue is the main problem with defining its scientific merits.  Calling those who disagree with you as lazy or implying that they are stupid in some way, is not really helping anything.  Oh, and I really have to slap myself hard for saying that because I did that very thing about Trump voters not more than 2 weeks ago. 

    Well, at least you had one good result, making me recognize my own hypocrisy.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.