But, if you -> can't go any deeper than that, you're just chanting doctrine. <-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
And it seems this post is a jab at one specific consensus that is a very partisan issue. Question - if there is a small chance that rapid climate change will kill us all, do we act now out of caution, or wait for 100% certainty that it will definitely kill us all before we act?
Does it? Or did you just see the word "consensus," make a whole host of assumptions, and begin to short-circuit in precisely the manner I'm trying to get people to avoid?
-
-
FWIW, I think there's a much greater than "small" chance that substantial climate change would have an absolutely devastating impact on humanity, but I'm appalled by the state of the conversation, and I think the result is likely to be a total inability to tackle it effectively.
-
Glad we are on the same page then. But what I mean is that 'consensus' had become a dirty word, a signifier of the climate partisan debate. So when people invoke the 'consensus is bullshit' line, you are right, I automatically assume they are climate deniers...
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.