4 ms·

Have you ever seriously thought about why people might reject a climate change consensus? It's easy to dismiss people as being dumb or misled, but the forcefuln

by burfog 8y ago

Have you ever seriously thought about why people might reject a climate change consensus? It's easy to dismiss people as being dumb or misled, but the forcefulness of this rejection suggests otherwise. There have been a few incidents of fraud committed in support of that consensus, undermining credibility, but the biggest problem is that the consensus comes with a plan of action that is completely unacceptable to many people. If accepting the consensus would lead to that plan of action, then the consensus can not be accepted. Climate change consensus wouldn't be worth rejecting if it didn't lead to a plan of action. You might think this violates the purity of science or something (which was already violated by that fraud) but science is not the issue here. At this point, nobody is doing science. The issue is a struggle for/against imposing heavy-handed economic control that severely changes the world's balance of economic power. Most likely the enforcement would require war. The control itself can be objectionable, even without the issue of international competition, because many people insist on a high level of personal economic freedom.

x220 8y ago
So people reject a claim not because it's false but because they don't like the consequences of accepting that claim? That's the modus operandi of totalitarian ideologies. It's hardly a reasonable justification. >At this point, nobody is doing science. Do you have a background in scientific research? I see no point debating further unless you do.
- burfog 8y ago
  The modus operandi of totalitarian ideologies is to use science as an excuse to achieve some goal, such as totalitarian control of the economy. To be clear: the people you see as being on "your team" are totalitarian, and you are cheerleading for them. If the only way to stop a totalitarian take-over of the economy is to reject a claim, then that is what must be done. How else? How would it be possible to accept that global warming is human caused and also possible for humans to stop, yet ensure that nothing is done about it? In other words, the requirement is to prevent eco-fascist totalitarian control of the economy. How can that be realistically achieved without rejecting the claim? If accepting the claim leads to eco-fascist totalitarian control of the economy, as it seems to, they the only possible solution is to reject the claim. I suspect you actually want a totalitarian take-over of the economy, no matter the science. Global warming is a convenient excuse. Your desire for that political change gives you a bias toward believing that global warming is both disastrous and avoidable. It also happens to be a belief expressed in the New Zealand shooter's manifesto; he was an eco-fascist. Also, LOL, I'm not going to dox myself with a credential war with an x220 on the internet.

by burfog 8y ago

x220 8y ago

So people reject a claim not because it's false but because they don't like the consequences of accepting that claim? That's the modus operandi of totalitarian ideologies. It's hardly a reasonable justification. >At this point, nobody is doing science. Do you have a background in scientific research? I see no point debating further unless you do.

burfog 8y ago
The modus operandi of totalitarian ideologies is to use science as an excuse to achieve some goal, such as totalitarian control of the economy. To be clear: the people you see as being on "your team" are totalitarian, and you are cheerleading for them. If the only way to stop a totalitarian take-over of the economy is to reject a claim, then that is what must be done. How else? How would it be possible to accept that global warming is human caused and also possible for humans to stop, yet ensure that nothing is done about it? In other words, the requirement is to prevent eco-fascist totalitarian control of the economy. How can that be realistically achieved without rejecting the claim? If accepting the claim leads to eco-fascist totalitarian control of the economy, as it seems to, they the only possible solution is to reject the claim. I suspect you actually want a totalitarian take-over of the economy, no matter the science. Global warming is a convenient excuse. Your desire for that political change gives you a bias toward believing that global warming is both disastrous and avoidable. It also happens to be a belief expressed in the New Zealand shooter's manifesto; he was an eco-fascist. Also, LOL, I'm not going to dox myself with a credential war with an x220 on the internet.