> You are saying a lot of different, seemingly subtle things, while heavily hedging everything, which makes it super hard to have a meaningful discussion.

"While heavily hedging everything", I suspect, is my unusual writing style, where I explicitly qualify that which is speculative, as being speculative, as opposed to the more common practice of presenting estimates and speculation as cold hard facts. It's a bit concerning that the precise use of language seems to be (here I am speculating, and open to correction) considered somehow inappropriate in a discussion where people are complaining about the discussion not being based on facts.

I would counter that having a meaningful discussion is difficult when people claim to be arguing in good faith, and accuse others of not doing so, but then proceed to completely ignore the core arguments the supposedly poor-faith person makes. (To be clear, you are not one of those people.)

>> Agreed, but this does not logically preclude my concerns that it is possible that [...]

> I mean, if you're talking philosophy here, I obviously agree that this is a logical possibility, but how does that move the conversation forward?

Well, I would say it moves the conversation forward in that:

a) I seem to have been successful in clearing up your speculation that my beliefs are grounded not in conspiracy theory, but in sound logic and epistemology: reality as it actually is, which includes things that are unknown, as opposed to how people like to pretend it is, where there are no unknowns

b) Perhaps now you may be open to consider that "deniers" are not all conspiracy theorists, but may rather be reacting with suspicion to an incredibly complex situation, which then might facilitate you opening up to my larger core idea, that it may be possible that the current gridlock in forming consensus that we are experiencing may be caused not entirely by people misunderstanding or not believing "the science", but due to complex, unseen psychological behaviors (tribalism, revenge, etc) that we all know exist, but seem amazingly reluctant to admit to acknowledging within the context of this and similar discussions

c) I may have been successful for the first time in getting someone to acknowledge that what I say is not false

> What we need to see is evidence one way or the other.

I hope you now see what I am saying: that perhaps this is not true. That a lack of scientific evidence is not what we need (we have overwhelming amounts already), but rather, we need to stop fighting.

> I would suggest to focus on specific points of contention and cite sources. This forces everyone in the discussion to actually go researching those sources in the first place, which should improve the level of dialog.

My point of contention is that people are unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that the core problem is not a misunderstanding of climate science, but a misunderstanding of human psychology, and how to get along. As evidence, I offer interactions in this and prior threads: repeated evidence of no one (prior to you) being willing to address what I actually say, usually via refusal to have a discussion, but when they do reply, addressing not what I say, but instead manufactured strawmen.

I'll post one of my favorite videos of all time:

Why Trump Will Win - Michael Moore Explains https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMm5HfxNXY4

Can you see any possible parallels between the seemingly illogical behavior displayed by people voting for Trump ("against their interests") and the seemingly illogical behavior displayed by people opposing climate change initiatives (also against their interests)? I have a strong feeling that there might be something important here we're missing, but I am not sure. You're welcome to your own opinion on the matter, but the key points I'd like to draw your attention toward are:

- Are you sure? How would you even know (particularly considering no one has studied the matter)?

- What if you're wrong?