3 ms·

I think the question ought to be why is your belief on the matter not the result of propaganda in the reverse direction? When you believe something that the ov

I think the question ought to be why is your belief on the matter not the result of propaganda in the reverse direction? When you believe something that the overwhelming majority of experts disagree with then it seems it’s much more likely you are the victim of propaganda. If 97% of the world’s oncologists say you have cancer then it’s likely you have cancer. Believing otherwise is deranged.

the_doctah 3y ago
Must have to do with Covid and trusting the "experts" who turned out to be a bunch of frauds and liars.
slily 3y ago
One doesn't have to fundamentally disagree with the existence of an issue like climate change in order to notice it warping into mass hysteria. Having lived through several such episodes I've given up convincing people that it is, in fact, mass hysteria, since people who don't see it right away never admit it until it winds down. I just hope we don't kill too many people with the "degrowth" idiocy which is fueled by flimsy doomerist predictions that are only loosely based on legitimate science but mostly pushed by entities with political and/or financial interests.
- acdha 3y ago
  I can’t help but notice the accusation of hysteria is backed by a conspicuous lack of evidence or meaningful policy proposals whereas the people you’re attacking have both decades of data, accurate predictions, and detailed policies which have been heavily analyzed.
- cykotic 3y ago
  Hysteria is too strong a word. Perhaps you speak in hyperbole. Few people are actually hysterical over the destruction of the environment that we are doing collectively. I just hope we don't kill too many people with the "degrowth" idiocy which is fueled by flimsy doomerist predictions that are only loosely based on legitimate science but mostly pushed by entities with political and/or financial interests. Why is the idiocy on this side of the issue and not yours? In terms of pushing political interests I think a relatively objective analysis of how corporations are influencing research and the messaging with regard to climate science would lead one to the opposite conclusion you appear to have come to. At least progress has been made. Thirty years ago people like you were at the denial stage. You aren’t denying the problem, just labeling those who want to take steps to mitigate it as hysterical. Soon you will be at the “We can’t do anything about it” stage.
  - slily 3y ago
    I thought you were replying in good faith until the last paragraph, too bad. Legitimate climate scientists (who aren't just hopping on the bandwagon) will echo my sentiment, perhaps with less hyperbolic language although I don't believe that calling it mass hysteria at this point is hyperbolic. But they are consistently pushed out of mainstream, popular "science" because they tend to have the appropriate level of humility and nuanced views as opposed to apocalyptic screams that "the planet is on fire" and such, so much like previous episodes of mass hysteria, their comments are largely drowned out by the hysterics. Or they just don't speak up because of people like you who'd smear them as deniers.
    - cykotic 3y ago
      The vast majority of climate scientists believe you are wrong. A very small minority of them believe you are right. Given that climate science is not like mathematics where absolute certainty is possible it’s best for people to go with the overwhelming consensus expert opinion. In a world of uncertain knowledge this is the best we can do and it isn’t hysteria to think there’s a huge problem. If my view wins out in the political sense then we’ll end up with a world with much more clean energy, a lot less pollution, less reliance on plastics, less resource wars, cleaner water, cleaner air, more trees, etc. If your view wins out politically, and you are correct that the issue is overblown, then we end up with worse air quality, more pollution, unclean water, etc. Whether or not my views on climate change are correct, mitigating the harm to the environment benefits everyone. This truly is a case where Pascal’s wager makes sense. So let’s stop swimming in our own shit and create a clean environment.
- throwbadubadu 3y ago
  > Having lived through several such episodes No, you have not ;) Noone has, and it shows what unfortunately leads to the opposite bad of hysteria (which is an much exaggerated claim for the minimum we are doing, if there'd be anything like hysteria except for activists I may find some hope back): downplaying it too much.
  - kian 3y ago
    I believe you may have misread them. I read this as saying they have been through several episodes of mass hysteria ( which is eminently believable, and many of us have in fact lived through several such episodes in our lifetimes, even if we aren't that old ;) ).
    - throwbadubadu 3y ago
      Nope, I read it exactly as that and imo it is ridiculous, top three episodes to clarify?
      - the_doctah 3y ago
        Covid-19, Y2K, Cold War. Not in that order.

the_doctah 3y ago

Must have to do with Covid and trusting the "experts" who turned out to be a bunch of frauds and liars.

slily 3y ago

One doesn't have to fundamentally disagree with the existence of an issue like climate change in order to notice it warping into mass hysteria. Having lived through several such episodes I've given up convincing people that it is, in fact, mass hysteria, since people who don't see it right away never admit it until it winds down. I just hope we don't kill too many people with the "degrowth" idiocy which is fueled by flimsy doomerist predictions that are only loosely based on legitimate science but mostly pushed by entities with political and/or financial interests.

acdha 3y ago
I can’t help but notice the accusation of hysteria is backed by a conspicuous lack of evidence or meaningful policy proposals whereas the people you’re attacking have both decades of data, accurate predictions, and detailed policies which have been heavily analyzed.
cykotic 3y ago
Hysteria is too strong a word. Perhaps you speak in hyperbole. Few people are actually hysterical over the destruction of the environment that we are doing collectively. I just hope we don't kill too many people with the "degrowth" idiocy which is fueled by flimsy doomerist predictions that are only loosely based on legitimate science but mostly pushed by entities with political and/or financial interests. Why is the idiocy on this side of the issue and not yours? In terms of pushing political interests I think a relatively objective analysis of how corporations are influencing research and the messaging with regard to climate science would lead one to the opposite conclusion you appear to have come to. At least progress has been made. Thirty years ago people like you were at the denial stage. You aren’t denying the problem, just labeling those who want to take steps to mitigate it as hysterical. Soon you will be at the “We can’t do anything about it” stage.
- slily 3y ago
  I thought you were replying in good faith until the last paragraph, too bad. Legitimate climate scientists (who aren't just hopping on the bandwagon) will echo my sentiment, perhaps with less hyperbolic language although I don't believe that calling it mass hysteria at this point is hyperbolic. But they are consistently pushed out of mainstream, popular "science" because they tend to have the appropriate level of humility and nuanced views as opposed to apocalyptic screams that "the planet is on fire" and such, so much like previous episodes of mass hysteria, their comments are largely drowned out by the hysterics. Or they just don't speak up because of people like you who'd smear them as deniers.
  - cykotic 3y ago
    The vast majority of climate scientists believe you are wrong. A very small minority of them believe you are right. Given that climate science is not like mathematics where absolute certainty is possible it’s best for people to go with the overwhelming consensus expert opinion. In a world of uncertain knowledge this is the best we can do and it isn’t hysteria to think there’s a huge problem. If my view wins out in the political sense then we’ll end up with a world with much more clean energy, a lot less pollution, less reliance on plastics, less resource wars, cleaner water, cleaner air, more trees, etc. If your view wins out politically, and you are correct that the issue is overblown, then we end up with worse air quality, more pollution, unclean water, etc. Whether or not my views on climate change are correct, mitigating the harm to the environment benefits everyone. This truly is a case where Pascal’s wager makes sense. So let’s stop swimming in our own shit and create a clean environment.
throwbadubadu 3y ago
> Having lived through several such episodes No, you have not ;) Noone has, and it shows what unfortunately leads to the opposite bad of hysteria (which is an much exaggerated claim for the minimum we are doing, if there'd be anything like hysteria except for activists I may find some hope back): downplaying it too much.
- kian 3y ago
  I believe you may have misread them. I read this as saying they have been through several episodes of mass hysteria ( which is eminently believable, and many of us have in fact lived through several such episodes in our lifetimes, even if we aren't that old ;) ).
  - throwbadubadu 3y ago
    Nope, I read it exactly as that and imo it is ridiculous, top three episodes to clarify?
    - the_doctah 3y ago
      Covid-19, Y2K, Cold War. Not in that order.