Belligerent Savant » Sun Jul 31, 2022 10:32 pm wrote:.
The key here, rather than focus on 1 single contention, is:
How much of current climate change alarmism/laser-focus on CO2 emissions a function of model assessments that may be utilizing preferred sampling/biased selection criteria, rather than long-term observation and other study methods that do not rely primarily on predictive models (particularly given that, increasingly over time, the predictive models turn out to be markedly off-target -- the Maldives example being one of myriad)?
The key here, rather than focus on a single location, is to stop spreading debunked horseshit. The models are accurate. The way people know that is because old predictions have come true, and because they don't just make a model and immediately predict the future. They test them with old data to see if they're able to predict things that already happened. If anything the models underestimated the pace of change. Of course they're not going to nail every little detail, but the larger picture has been pretty spot on.
And: is it plausible that there are other agendas in play by those pushing 'climate change as imminent threat' narratives, and their corresponding 'solutions', that are NOT truly aimed at mitigation as a primary focus but instead focused primarily on serving special/narrow interests?
And: is it plausible that there are other agendas in play by those pushing 'climate change is no big deal' narratives, and their corresponding 'solutions', that are NOT truly aimed at truthfulness as a primary focus but instead focused primarily on serving special/narrow interests and the profits of the fossil fuel industry?
Perhaps there's a middle ground, perhaps not, but as the last 2 years have clearly shown, egregious LiES can and WILL be told to further agendas to the detriment of the majority. Given some of the same entities involved in pushing current 'climate change' dominant narratives, it should not be considered in any way outlandish or outside the bounds of necessary discourse to earnestly revisit what we, collectively, have accepted largely at face value (or accepted in part based on years-long aggressive marketing/propaganda campaigns, all with deep funding).
The world is doomed! The world is fine! Let's find a middle ground. How much doom should we accept? A little bit? Medium doom? Is it okay if only poor people are doomed?
The deep funding you're talking about is the millions and millions, supplied by the insane profits and trillions of dollars we have given them in subsidies, spent by the fossil fuel industry to muddy the waters. One of those little details you somehow never seem to comment on - the fact that there has been a decades-long, well known campaign by the fossil fuel industry (who, by the way, knew that climate change was a problem forty years ago. Just stop and think about that for a minute: the industry most likely to be impacted by the reality of climate change acknowledged it was real forty fucking years ago, and then decided to lie their asses off about it) to fund deniers and skeptics and shitty think tanks to produce FUD, with the single goal of preventing any measures that would impact their profits. You're seeing conspiracies everywhere, while at the same time completely ignoring the one we know for a fact is real.