Reply To: Translation to Portuguese language

[Phil’s Dad]

Rezwan wrote:
That’s one way to look at it. Another is to say we’re problem solvers. Tamers. We’ll stop at nothing to shape this world into something comfortable for us.

Accepting your premise I would caution that (I believe) we evolved over millions of years during which time there have been some quite significant shifts in what might have been thought comfortable (or normal). (Not to mention, for now, the dangers of run-away geoengineering). Where do you set the thermostat? Who sets it? What if I like it warmer/cooler than you do? Which bit of the world are you setting it for?

Meanwhile, what do the denialist actually want? I suppose as a counterpoint to your statement above, Denialists DON’T want to feel responsible…No, that can’t be it.

Oh yes it can, in part. There is no doubt that some feel that way. However, in my (tiny) experience, most denialist (while we are using “perjorative”(sic) terms) are simply not convinced.

And the[y] often state they want to prevent the expenditure of a lot of human resources to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.

Again true of genuine denialist but the broader category of skeptics on the other hand may simply want to avoid applying a fix which turns out to be worse than the original problem. This is where the generalised use of the term denialist to describe “any who take issue with the scientific cannon” clouds the issue.

I don’t know if you see the irony here.

Indeed I do. Non dubito there are some who will not leave well enough alone. They have to find a problem to solve (and if one is not readily to hand…)

[While they believed it was CO2] Most of humanity was in happy denial of the larger, uncontrollable issues.

Should we leave them there? No uncomfortable arguments with entrenched views. No risk of being on the recieving end of name calling. Ignorance is bliss.