You can't blame some people for going 'It's a hoax, and will blow over the last six times.'
Betting against catastrophe is always a good idea, but conclusively asserting that it's a "hoax" with absolutely nothing to back it up is also pretty absurd.
Yeah, we could stand to pollute less and conserve more
We could always pollute less and 'conserve' more. The problem is that at the present, it's being pushed way past the point of vastly diminishing returns. But for most people, it's just a religion - putting plastic in a separate garbage bin is their good deed of the week.
but I'll be damned if I ever take CC's data at face value.
There is not really a uniform set of 'data' that we can speak about. I think 'the data', such as it is, is valid to the extent that such models can be, but the presentation often is not. In newspapers, it often takes the most alarmistic scenarions, presents it as a certainty, and then ends up with people dismissing the whole thing as a hoax when the predictions turn out to be false, as always.
I would recommend Michael Shellenberger's book to anyone interested in the thing. Though I don't know whether he can be trusted either. That is part of the problem, all of this stuff is so inscrutable, and the 'experts' so morally and intellectually bankrupt, that one is forced to either believe politicized anarcho-primitivist 'experts' on one side, or those 'experts' funded by Exon (as the saying goes) on the other side, or into agnosticism. The fanaticism with which people advocate positions of which they have no clue at all whether they are correct, on both sides, is something that bothers me. At least have the balls to acknowledge that you don't know. As I don't.
Betting against catastrophe is always a good idea, but conclusively asserting that it's a "hoax" with absolutely nothing to back it up is also pretty absurd.
Remember how we were supposed to be underwater in 12 years? The hole in the o-zone layer to destroy us all? Melting polar ice caps? There may have been some nuggets of truth hidden away in them, but frankly, calling them a hoax is being gentle. 'Directed lies to seize assets' would be closer to the truth.
We could always pollute less and 'conserve' more. The problem is that at the present, it's being pushed way past the point of vastly diminishing returns. But for most people, it's just a religion - putting plastic in a separate garbage bin is their good deed of the week.
Few arguments there, I was thinking more along the lines of all these stupid masks getting put into recycle bins and pushing for more items to be made from locally recycled material instead of cheap plastic from China.
There is not really a uniform set of 'data' that we can speak about.
Fair, I wasn't communicating clearly there. "Any information about CC published by mass media and/or that push for political control rather than targeted improvements" won't be taken at face value. If it shows up in a science magazine, it's a maybe. If it's a published paper, I'll at least humor the idea and see if it remains internally consistent. If it comes from a politician's or celebrity's lips, I would rather eat fresh vomit than accept it.
That said, I can't blame those that just go 'It's a hoax' still. Because after fifty years of Chicken Little screaming for attention, you either tune him out or you become the next Chicken Little.
Remember how we were supposed to be underwater in 12 years? The hole in the o-zone layer to destroy us all? Melting polar ice caps? There may have been some nuggets of truth hidden away in them
No, alarmists have no nugget of truth to offer whatsoever. None of this nonsense was backed by "the scientific consensus" that they always brag about. It's mostly pushed by the media. and activists.
'Directed lies to seize assets' would be closer to the truth.
Depends on who you are talking about. The alarmists, that is correct, but that wouldn't make the whole thing a hoax.
I was thinking more along the lines of all these stupid masks getting put into recycle bins and pushing for more items to be made from locally recycled material instead of cheap plastic from China.
The funny thing is that this will likely use up more resources than just importing them made from cheap plastic from China. Why that is 'sustainable', no one knows.
"Any information about CC published by mass media and/or that push for political control rather than targeted improvements" won't be taken at face value. If it shows up in a science magazine, it's a maybe.
I agree with that, although I will say that science 'magazines' are generally propaganda outlets. What is semi-respectable is the science journals, but even they are being increasingly corruptetd by IDPol.
If it comes from a politician's or celebrity's lips, I would rather eat fresh vomit than accept it.
Betting against catastrophe is always a good idea, but conclusively asserting that it's a "hoax" with absolutely nothing to back it up is also pretty absurd.
We could always pollute less and 'conserve' more. The problem is that at the present, it's being pushed way past the point of vastly diminishing returns. But for most people, it's just a religion - putting plastic in a separate garbage bin is their good deed of the week.
There is not really a uniform set of 'data' that we can speak about. I think 'the data', such as it is, is valid to the extent that such models can be, but the presentation often is not. In newspapers, it often takes the most alarmistic scenarions, presents it as a certainty, and then ends up with people dismissing the whole thing as a hoax when the predictions turn out to be false, as always.
I would recommend Michael Shellenberger's book to anyone interested in the thing. Though I don't know whether he can be trusted either. That is part of the problem, all of this stuff is so inscrutable, and the 'experts' so morally and intellectually bankrupt, that one is forced to either believe politicized anarcho-primitivist 'experts' on one side, or those 'experts' funded by Exon (as the saying goes) on the other side, or into agnosticism. The fanaticism with which people advocate positions of which they have no clue at all whether they are correct, on both sides, is something that bothers me. At least have the balls to acknowledge that you don't know. As I don't.
Remember how we were supposed to be underwater in 12 years? The hole in the o-zone layer to destroy us all? Melting polar ice caps? There may have been some nuggets of truth hidden away in them, but frankly, calling them a hoax is being gentle. 'Directed lies to seize assets' would be closer to the truth.
Few arguments there, I was thinking more along the lines of all these stupid masks getting put into recycle bins and pushing for more items to be made from locally recycled material instead of cheap plastic from China.
Fair, I wasn't communicating clearly there. "Any information about CC published by mass media and/or that push for political control rather than targeted improvements" won't be taken at face value. If it shows up in a science magazine, it's a maybe. If it's a published paper, I'll at least humor the idea and see if it remains internally consistent. If it comes from a politician's or celebrity's lips, I would rather eat fresh vomit than accept it.
That said, I can't blame those that just go 'It's a hoax' still. Because after fifty years of Chicken Little screaming for attention, you either tune him out or you become the next Chicken Little.
No, alarmists have no nugget of truth to offer whatsoever. None of this nonsense was backed by "the scientific consensus" that they always brag about. It's mostly pushed by the media. and activists.
Depends on who you are talking about. The alarmists, that is correct, but that wouldn't make the whole thing a hoax.
The funny thing is that this will likely use up more resources than just importing them made from cheap plastic from China. Why that is 'sustainable', no one knows.
I agree with that, although I will say that science 'magazines' are generally propaganda outlets. What is semi-respectable is the science journals, but even they are being increasingly corruptetd by IDPol.
That is no more than common sense.