Don Romano (alt)
What kind of evidence would it actually take to convince a climate sceptic? I get the distinct impression that scepticism surrounds this topic because it's a rare case of a scientific claim that, if true, leads to invasive measures that rub right wingers the wrong way.
The need for vaccination due to group immunity is a similar issue, and guess what: Here come the anti-vaccers!
Don Romano (alt)
Don't say that the climate is always changing. Stop saying that. That argument has already been knocked down: The rate of change is more rapid now than it has been for as far back as we can measure with historical data, ice cores and what not.
It's never been about the science, of course. Again, we've known about the green house effect long before it was politicised. It just took us a while to understand what effects the change in temperature would actually have.
Don Romano (alt)
Sometimes, we know facts about the world, but we don't perceive them as problematic. You can stare cold numbers in the face for ages before you start thinking about real-world implications. Took us a while to start connecting the dots with asteroids, for example. We knew they had repeatedly caused mass extinctions, but it took a while before someone said "Wait, couldn't this also happen to us?" and began thinking of ways of preventing it.
Jonkman Microblog is a social network, courtesy of SOBAC Microcomputer Services. It runs on GNU social, version 1.2.0-beta5, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.