Climate change models predict remarkably accurate results

[caseymoz]

5. What was wrong with that source?

The article you link to was published today. You could hardly criticize anyone for opinions based on information that wasn't previously available.

I'm not certain I follow what you're saying. By "doomer contrarians," are you talking about those who believe avoiding or mitigating Global Warming is a lost cause, and we should learn to adjust to the changes? That seems to be who you're criticizing.

What limits people in understanding comes down to one thing: reading speed. It's hard to get informed about Global Warming, or anything, when you can't take in the information. If it takes a person 3 months to read a 500 page novel, and they're really trying to go quicker, then it doesn't matter how many articles and references you throw at them. Meanwhile, a reading rate like that is very discouraging. From there, they do the best with the information their minds can get to. But they also have to take shortcuts and, to some degree, fake it, use inductive logic and guess.

Really in the Internet Age, the slowest thing in the process is the human mind. People must learn to read fast.

To get back on topic, what is wrong with this source? He's a scientist, but when Alder Stone talks about hope, that's not a scientific principle. He's speaking outside his expertise. This is important, because after he's committed all that time to earning his four degrees, it means he's actually put in less time learning things outside his specialties than the average person his age.

There's still a good chance that he's right. And I guess if optimism is your motivator, that's intolerable. However, saying it's not hopeful or even hopeless is far different than saying there's no point in trying. Not when the survival of the whole human species is at stake, not to mention the survival of other life.