I love how they keep trying to say, 'no, no, that was just theoretical theorizing...a few scientific papers! No one was saying we should be afraid of ice ages!'
Climate change is a cesspit of halfwits and perverse incentives. In grade school, we're taught the simplified model that plants photosynthesize, consuming CO2 and producing oxygen; while animals respire, consuming oxygen and producing CO2. Since the real world is governed by the Pareto Principle, meaning exponential complexity as you go deeper and edge-cases become significant, plants also undergo respiration and give off CO2. The high upper-bound of environmental science complexity is a perfect match for Dunning-Kruger. I was at least admit that I didn't have the competence to come to a conclusion on climate-change in high-school, and still can only come to conclusions on the socio-political factors surrounding such.
Laymen and non-market profiteers (govt. and legacy media backed climate research tied to approaching a predetermined conclusion) wind up in a negative feedback loop because of the combined general dearth of civic virtue, inadvertent indoctrination, and perverse incentive. Wanting to reduce pollution and have a healthy environment is a good thing, but the cognitive dissonance in disregarding trade-offs and real consequences is staggering. That it's socially favorable to not earnestly challenge folk on their shallow beliefs depresses me.
They can't really say "see? our crazy ideas worked!" when they whine 24/7 that they're not getting their way, and we have charts showing CO2 emissions increasing every year.
Ice age fearmongering back on the menu, bois
I love how they keep trying to say, 'no, no, that was just theoretical theorizing...a few scientific papers! No one was saying we should be afraid of ice ages!'
Climate change is a cesspit of halfwits and perverse incentives. In grade school, we're taught the simplified model that plants photosynthesize, consuming CO2 and producing oxygen; while animals respire, consuming oxygen and producing CO2. Since the real world is governed by the Pareto Principle, meaning exponential complexity as you go deeper and edge-cases become significant, plants also undergo respiration and give off CO2. The high upper-bound of environmental science complexity is a perfect match for Dunning-Kruger. I was at least admit that I didn't have the competence to come to a conclusion on climate-change in high-school, and still can only come to conclusions on the socio-political factors surrounding such.
Laymen and non-market profiteers (govt. and legacy media backed climate research tied to approaching a predetermined conclusion) wind up in a negative feedback loop because of the combined general dearth of civic virtue, inadvertent indoctrination, and perverse incentive. Wanting to reduce pollution and have a healthy environment is a good thing, but the cognitive dissonance in disregarding trade-offs and real consequences is staggering. That it's socially favorable to not earnestly challenge folk on their shallow beliefs depresses me.
Sudden Adult Death Syndrome will still be attributed to climate change.
It's getting cold in here, throw Greta on the fire.
It'll reverse at just the right time for the eco-commies to take credit.
They can't really say "see? our crazy ideas worked!" when they whine 24/7 that they're not getting their way, and we have charts showing CO2 emissions increasing every year.
There were never any signs to begin with. We have been entering an ice age for the last 80 years.