> This based on where political interference abuses the scientific consensus or manipulates it.
Funny how this standard is never applied to oil companies. You know, the ones that figured out half a century ago that climate change was a problem, and have been running an interference campaign since then?
Given the state of energy consumption today, the idea that it’s the green side that’s abusing the political process to get what it wants is downright laughable. Meanwhile congress is openly bought by fossil fuel interests, and we can’t even stop burning coal.
> not saying I disagree with the climate change consensus, I think it's absolutely an anthropogenic issue
Ahh, the anti-anti position, how annoying. You’re convinced that climate change is real, but you’re going to waste a lot of time making bad arguments about consensus and scientific change because…? For someone who thinks it’s “absolutely” an anthropogenic issue, you sure are trying to muddy the water a lot.
I think you're misreading me. I'm not on the denier side. I personally think we're spending far too much time around defining the problem (or that it exists...) instead of systematic approaches to change not driven by industry. I think we do need to be careful that the 'green' solutions do not become distractions from real solutions - i.e. things quietly proposed by the fossil industry that point the blame away or avoid solving the real problems.
I am always happy though to argue for space to exist for those that I disagree with to speak, we are in the most trouble when only the 'truth' - as much is it seems certain - is allowed to exist at all.
We tend not to care if we agree with the consensus, but imagine if Facebook/Twitter decided (or were influenced to...) that Solar energy solutions are misinformation and started removing/labeling that content. Is that fine, or is it a trickier question when you no longer agree with the 'truth' they are protecting?
That’s a whole lot of chaff for someone who claims to believe that global warming exists and is human caused. Also, you’ve moved the goal posts from “consensus” to “censorship” and dragging in Facebook for whatever reason, which is rhetorically suspect.
You’re wasting a huge amount of energy and time arguing about … well to be honest, I can’t figure out what your point is. Consensus is bad? Consensus is wrong because science changes? Consensus leads to censorship? Your point seems to shift around every time someone gives a counter argument, which makes me doubt that you’re acting in good faith.
Funny how this standard is never applied to oil companies. You know, the ones that figured out half a century ago that climate change was a problem, and have been running an interference campaign since then?
Given the state of energy consumption today, the idea that it’s the green side that’s abusing the political process to get what it wants is downright laughable. Meanwhile congress is openly bought by fossil fuel interests, and we can’t even stop burning coal.
> not saying I disagree with the climate change consensus, I think it's absolutely an anthropogenic issue
Ahh, the anti-anti position, how annoying. You’re convinced that climate change is real, but you’re going to waste a lot of time making bad arguments about consensus and scientific change because…? For someone who thinks it’s “absolutely” an anthropogenic issue, you sure are trying to muddy the water a lot.