"You also claim that skepticism is rooted in anti-intellectualism. I'm here as one of the regular folks to challenge you on that. Let's have a discussion of climate based upon real earth science, not political science." First, I object to your term "skepticism". Another standard trope from the world of climate denial. Skepticism, when…
"You also claim that skepticism is rooted in anti-intellectualism. I'm here as one of the regular folks to challenge you on that. Let's have a discussion of climate based upon real earth science, not political science." First, I object to your term "skepticism". Another standard trope from the world of climate denial. Skepticism, when used in scientific inquiry is a way of taking scientific findings to a high level, where it must pass muster among experts who have questions. Is the logic good? Where the experiments legit? Etc. But there is a point where legitimate skepticism ends and a consensus is reached. That has occurred for nearly all climate science today - did a long time ago. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Any contrarian views must now be subjected to "skepticism" from the scientific community. Including yours. See if it holds up. So far it has not. For the sake of the world, I hope such claims are right. But I think I know better. Follow the money. Second, I did not say that skepticism (I would correct that to say "contrarianism") is rooted in anti-intellectualism. It is a factor for sure, but I believe the real reason is greed and want of riches and power.
As for a discussion with you, I am not expert enough. And neither are you. And in the absence of true understanding, true expertise, it comes down to who do you trust. I trust climate science to reveal the true nature of what is happening to our atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning at a prodigious rate. You do not - you are on a different page. We are not going to get past that. So no thanks.
"You also claim that skepticism is rooted in anti-intellectualism. I'm here as one of the regular folks to challenge you on that. Let's have a discussion of climate based upon real earth science, not political science." First, I object to your term "skepticism". Another standard trope from the world of climate denial. Skepticism, when used in scientific inquiry is a way of taking scientific findings to a high level, where it must pass muster among experts who have questions. Is the logic good? Where the experiments legit? Etc. But there is a point where legitimate skepticism ends and a consensus is reached. That has occurred for nearly all climate science today - did a long time ago. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Any contrarian views must now be subjected to "skepticism" from the scientific community. Including yours. See if it holds up. So far it has not. For the sake of the world, I hope such claims are right. But I think I know better. Follow the money. Second, I did not say that skepticism (I would correct that to say "contrarianism") is rooted in anti-intellectualism. It is a factor for sure, but I believe the real reason is greed and want of riches and power.
As for a discussion with you, I am not expert enough. And neither are you. And in the absence of true understanding, true expertise, it comes down to who do you trust. I trust climate science to reveal the true nature of what is happening to our atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning at a prodigious rate. You do not - you are on a different page. We are not going to get past that. So no thanks.