“Anthro-Skeptic” raised some hackles by questioning the human impact on climate change. Remember, though, he wasn’t denying either the reality or the severity of climate change (that's reserved for Republican Congresspeople and office seekers); and he was arguing from science, however much a minority view, not polemics. He may be wrong, but one of the primary obstacles to discussing this issue is that ideology seems inevitably to trump (if you’ll pardon the expression) science. Two respondents spoke to that, one asking for information, the other suggesting a path forward:
- “Your science friend has a timely and compelling view. However, it would be helpful to us lazy sideliners to have a good reference (preferably short, concise and readable for the average 12th-grade, unscientific reader). I know there is a ton of writings out there concerning ‘terragenic’ vs. ‘anthropogenic’ causes...but hey, I'm busy."
- “There indeed seem to be reputable scientists who are not convinced we currently have the science to determine if man is significantly contributing to global warming. However, some of these scientists seem to agree that, if it eventually turns out (through better science) that man is significantly responsible, it may be too late to do anything about it. So unless the naysayers can scientifically and convincingly prove that man’s role is not significant, the only rational course is to reduce our footprint as fast as we can. For my very humble thinking, the immediate (and perhaps long-term) answer is nuclear power.”
One last question: Is there a connection between our discussions on climate change and Flint’s poisoned water?