Quote:
Originally Posted by cjrjck
I asked this same question earlier so I will try again. For the sake of conversation, call me skeptic. Why does that bother you so much? I respect your right to believe anything about any subject, even if I disagree with you on some issues. It's really none of my business otherwise. Yet for some reason I can't understand, when it comes to this issue, bringing skeptics into the "fold" seems to be a paramount concern for many of the "true believers". Why?
|
To me, there is a difference between skeptic and denier. A skeptic acknowledges the data but still has questions or doubts. I am a bit of a skeptic myself on this subject. I see the correlation between CO2 and an increased rate of temperature rise and I have an understanding of how CO2 is able to cause temperature rise but I don't feel 100% confident that CO2 *is* the cause of that increase.
I would welcome a discussion with a skeptic. I enjoyed pondering why sea levels rose so quickly in the past compared to today. It was interesting to research sea level change in the Med and to think about how it could appear that the levels were 20ft higher on one side of the island in Roman times while also being 13ft *lower* on the other side. Asking questions about the data and sincerely looking for answers is interesting.
What is more common on this topic are deniers. Some are simply say "there ain't no climate change." Others point to gross estimations of the climate millions of years ago to ignore instrumented measurements from the last 100 years. And others attempt to mislead by posting data from denier websites or cherry-picking data until a graph looks the way they want or discussing the wardrobe choices of coral.