Taken from [m]:
Common sense argument in favor of GW in a nutshell:
1. I do not have the knowledge or resources to make any definitive conclusions about global warming.
2. Such is the case with most complex scientific topics, so I accept the MAJORITY CONSENSUS of peer reviewed scientists when I lack the ability to investigate myself.
3. I reject the idea that scientists are conspiring to fool the public about the truth of global warming, because that idea is contradictory to my experience with peer reviewed scientists in ALL other scientific fields.
4. I understand that science is constantly revising its own conclusions, so I accept nothing as an absolute truth. With that stated…
5. Even though I accept the majority position, whether the scientific community is absolutely correct about global warming or completely off base is totally irrelevant. Reduced emissions, smart energy policy, and clean, renewable energy are all important goals that we should strive for, regardless of political alignment.
Unless you oppose a transition from fossil fuels or you’re a scientist with vested interest in a competing theory, there is literally NO reason to argue against global warming. Additionally, the topic is pretty much moot since both party candidates, as well as the sitting president, have accepted global warming and the need for a change in energy policy.
So for a more relevant debate, who opposes a transition from fossil fuels and why?
