I have a question for you as well. One argument I've heard from climate-change skeptics is that the earth has gone through ice ages in the past without any intervention from humanity, so who's to say we're responsible for the changes we're seeing now? There are some obvious counterarguments, but I'm curious of your opinion and others here.
back
2 comments
Hello, anderspitman. Thank you for attempting to have an honest and intellectual discussion. I'm not sure my answer will help, but I'll give you what I can.
I typically don't take sides on issues, because I feel very few issues are defined well enough to do so without blinding myself to other information and possibilities. I find no intelligence in rejecting information, simply because it does not fit into my world-view, so I choose not to do so. I also like to reevaluate information frequently, since things are rarely, if ever, static. This may not be for everyone, but I like living in an ever-changing world of uncertainty, discovery, and reevaluation. It works for me.
Therefore, rather than take sides, I act. I do what seems right for me, given my current understanding. With regards to pollution, and its effects on our climate, I drive an electric car, ride public transportation or walk when I can, use renewable sources to heat my home (solar, Trombe wall), insulate my home beyond spec, do not use air conditioning, have replaced all my lights with LEDs and skylights, etc. I live in a fairly large home, but I consume less than half the energy of my neighbors, who live in homes half the size. That's what I chose to do about pollution. It seems to be a lot more effective than getting worked up over nothing and down-voting people online, but to each their own.
Maybe you can understand now why I said my opinions on the matter are irrelevant. They don't fit into the polarized, team-sport camps of believers vs. non-believers. Yes, I can read and understand scientific papers, charts, and other data. I can even act upon them, as I've explained. What I won't do, however, is marginalize people and blind myself to the legitimate concerns of others. For example, the federal government has been a huge propagator of lies, fraud, and other evils around the world throughout my lifetime, so when someone runs from climate change based solely on the federal government's involvement, I can only agree that they have a legitimate concern. I believe it would be intellectually dishonest to do otherwise.
I doubt that has been of much help, but that is the way I approach most things.
Thanks for the reply. Definitely an interesting approach, and I appreciate your efforts to play it safe with respect to the environment. But you're correct that this didn't really address my question. Maybe I can ask another way. If someone used the ice age argument, how do you think a well educated and articulated person who disagreed with them would open up a meaningful dialogue?
Regardless of what the argument is. If you disagree with someone, and want to persuade them to your way of thinking, you CANNOT make the conversation a you're-wrong-and-I'm-right discussion or you'll lose every time. Facts are going to be of little use as well. The only way to convince someone of something is to figure out how to present it in a way that benefits them.
I think this will be quite hard with climate change, considering the myriad other issues in life that are much more immediate concerns for people.
Why would his opinion matter? Doesn't what he has already said stand on its own merit?
In my experience, the reason people usually want to know someone's personal opinion is simply to further their own fallacious, ad hominem arguments. I hope you had something more noble in mind.
I think it's sad that you've been conditioned to assume that, but I agree it does happen a lot. But in this case I am literally curious what parent thinks about this argument, because they seem to have a good grasp on the POV of many of my friends, and I want to understand better ways of engaging in dialogue.
My apologies for leaping to conclusions. As you said, it does happen all too often though. I'll try not to let that taint my judgements in the future.
You're right. It does happen a lot. Far too often, in fact. Not only is it as annoying as hell, I think it also hinders progress. Glad to hear you're above it.
Not above it or any of the traps we all fall into as humans, but try to keep an eye out and recognize when I'm doing it.