Harold, frequent contributor to Panda's Thumb, had an interesting observation of the argument that global warming is cyclical and caused by powerful forces on earth, and therefore we humans can't have had anything to do with it:
Indeed, just because multiple factors contribute to climate changes, does not mean that human activity cannot be an important factor.
In fact, I find this kind of logic exactly backwards.
If the climate had been exceptionally stable and unchanging for the past millions or billions of years, then it might make sense to deny that anything we puny humans could do would impact it.
And indeed, its a pretty safe bet that were that the case, it would be the first argument the deniers would trot out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Do you happen to know what percentage of the "deniers" say that
A) there is no global warming.
B) there is insignificant global warming, but the human effect on GW is zero.
C) there is insignificant global warming, but the human effect on GW is minimal.
D) there is significant global warming, but the human effect on GW is minimal.
I don't. I also don't know what percentage of evolution deniers believe the earth is 6,000 years old or 10,000 years old, or which believe in the ark story and which don't, or which astrologers use 5 planets instead of 7 or 8, or which demons the deniers of germ theory blame for illness, and for the same reasons.
Once someone rejects science, their pseudo-scientific explanations are just a smoke screen. The real story is their underlying motive, which in the case of AGW is not having to change the way they live or view the world economically, which underlies every reason you list.
"The real story is their underlying motive, which ... is not having to change the way they live"
Funny, that's the same reason many religious folks give for atheists believing the way they do.
Yes, but unlike the religious believers, the AGW proponents actually have evidence to back their claims, whereas the religious believers, as usual, are making shit up (since, among the many flaws in that argument, many atheists live lives that are more "Christian" than the Christians).
You'e exceeded your MSU quota for the week Alex.
Funny, that's the same reason many religious folks give for atheists believing the way they do.And rightly so. My rejection of Huitzilopochtli stems entirely from my squeamishness about incorporating human sacrifice into my routine. It feels good to get that off my chest.
"the argument that global warming is cyclical and caused by powerful forces on earth, and therefore we humans can't have had anything to do with it"
Are the deniers saying that humans CAN'T HAVE had anything to do with it, or are they saying that humans probably have LITTLE to do with it.
Post a Comment