> What you're referring to is the idea that climate change exists
Plenty of people, even on HN deny that climate change is happening.
Plenty of people, even on HN deny that climate change is happening.
In any case, it's verifiable that nobody of consequence in the public policy debate on climate change is saying that the climate is perfectly static. The disagreements are about degrees, certainties, consequences, timelines, and appropriate responses.
This insistence on debating such a strawman looks really bad, I have to be honest. Why not "steelman" your opponent and argue against his best points, instead of "weakmanning" the dumbest things anyone on that side has ever said? It'd be a lot more productive.
And yet, your grandparent comment...
>the other says that CO2 has no effect on natural, periodic climate cycles
[Emphasis above mine] No, this absolutely is not what "the other side" says.
This is not about "semantics", it's a fundamental disconnect wherein people are talking past each other because they are stubbornly not acknowledging (or even aware) or what the others are saying. Your comment leads me to believe that it's not a tactic of any kind, but rather an internal perceptual distortion, which can only be solved by effort on the part of the perceiver.
Steelman your opponents, people. You can do so much better than this!
Extreme right position held by POTUS and the like: climate change is a hoax and humans aren't responsible for changes in climate.
Chair of house science committe: Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant and climate isn't significantly sensitive to manmade emissions
EPA: extreme whether events don't signify a trend, economic concerns are more important than regulations
I'd be satisfied if politicians just quit playing scientists and started making policy decisions instead of steering/filtering scientific results.