3 ms·

The evidence is all based on models, controlled by the very people who have incentive for those models to support their claims (scientists receiving grants, cor

The evidence is all based on models, controlled by the very people who have incentive for those models to support their claims (scientists receiving grants, corporate kickbacks, etc and NGOs/politicians doing the same). For decades, the very people who support these models have been telling people we're just a few short years away from the demise of the species...only for nothing to happen (and for the very things they claim to be getting worse, actually getting better). Again, and again, and again. First it was global warming, then it was "climate change" (hint: the climate always changes—the real subtext here is Malthusian discontent for humanity, not a desire to protect nature). Those very same people, too, go out of their way to dismiss technology like nuclear energy and carbon capture which can solve the problem they claim to wish to solve (reducing and/or eliminating emissions). Why? Because if they solve the problem, they can't milk subsidies from the government and will actually have to find real work to do. Not just parading around (in f*cking private jets pouring out emissions) and self-flagellating at conferences and "summits." The whole thing is a gigantic self-defeating farce, that, when looked at through the lens of objectivity makes about as much sense as Scientology (the comparison to a religion, here, being purposeful). The parallels to the COVID groupthink are apt, correct, and the exact same candy bar in a different wrapper.

praxulus 4y ago
The evidence includes the actual record of rising temperatures, rising CO2 levels, and laboratory experiments that confirm that the greenhouse effect exists. None of those are just models. I'm extremely surprised that even a single scientific paper predicted the demise of the species due to climate change within a few years. Could you point me to such a thing?
- rglover 4y ago
  > The evidence includes the actual record of rising temperatures, rising CO2 levels, and laboratory experiments that confirm that the greenhouse effect exists. None of those are just models. No, but the things actually being cited—namely, the IPCC annual reports—as the pretext for a lot of the foolish policy we're seeing, are based on models. > I'm extremely surprised that even a single scientific paper predicted the demise of the species due to climate change within a few years. Could you point me to such a thing? No, that rhetoric often comes from misinterpretations/misrepresentations of scientific papers and statistics (by politicians, the media, and leaders of NGOs) which is then used to justify the aforementioned foolish policy. Which is frustrating as the papers often denote a problem existing, but not as one without remedy. And this is the crux of the problem: the argument is framed as being whether or not climate change exists (anyone who doesn't swallow the narrative whole is automatically a "climate denier") and not "given that it exists—and we know the cause—why are we ignoring viable solutions to those causes in favor of less-viable half-solutions that exacerbate the problem?"

praxulus 4y ago

The evidence includes the actual record of rising temperatures, rising CO2 levels, and laboratory experiments that confirm that the greenhouse effect exists. None of those are just models. I'm extremely surprised that even a single scientific paper predicted the demise of the species due to climate change within a few years. Could you point me to such a thing?

rglover 4y ago
> The evidence includes the actual record of rising temperatures, rising CO2 levels, and laboratory experiments that confirm that the greenhouse effect exists. None of those are just models. No, but the things actually being cited—namely, the IPCC annual reports—as the pretext for a lot of the foolish policy we're seeing, are based on models. > I'm extremely surprised that even a single scientific paper predicted the demise of the species due to climate change within a few years. Could you point me to such a thing? No, that rhetoric often comes from misinterpretations/misrepresentations of scientific papers and statistics (by politicians, the media, and leaders of NGOs) which is then used to justify the aforementioned foolish policy. Which is frustrating as the papers often denote a problem existing, but not as one without remedy. And this is the crux of the problem: the argument is framed as being whether or not climate change exists (anyone who doesn't swallow the narrative whole is automatically a "climate denier") and not "given that it exists—and we know the cause—why are we ignoring viable solutions to those causes in favor of less-viable half-solutions that exacerbate the problem?"