| > I don't understand your problem with using scientific arguments. The Scientific Method is unambiguously great. The modern Science (TM) is a political tool used to browbeat people into submission for money and power. I'm not trying to be insulting in any way, but my opinion is that people with your general worldview cannot see how there's a difference between those 2 things because Science (TM) strongly aligns with your worldview. > I think that you reject evidence conceptually and are "not seeing" any climate change is a self-refuting argument if you're willing to think about it. In the post you're responding to, I listed a set of conditions that all have to be true in order to make "climate change" an actual problem, caused by man, that can be fixed by human action, and whose solution is a win from a cost-benefit standpoint. There's not just 1 variable here that has to be weighed. Science qua science cannot advocate any action. Science is just a tool for understanding the natural world. Once you use science to understand the world as best as possible, it's human risk-management that actually allows people to decide on a course of action. Science does not and cannot make decisions for anybody or advocate any specific action. > The reason climate change is seemingly eternal and difficult to solve is because the biggest polluters aren't going to stop and we can't make them. Actually, you can probably make anybody do anything with enough force, but is it worth the cost? And by cost, I don't just mean money, I mean the second order effects in terms of human lives and misery. That's another one of my big questions. The economic calamity that might ensue by giving climate warriors carte blanche to do whatever they want to do might harm billions more lives than the worst possible outcome from climate change. We're starting to see what a relatively small increase in gas prices is doing to families on the bubble. If prices end up going higher, food will literally begin to be impossible to grow, process, and transport and it will not be feasible for many people to work. How many might starve? And that's just with a relatively small gas price increase without the real climate change crowd running the show. > Here's more info on the systemic issues if you're open to any data or new ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice Framing anything in terms of "climate justice" is horrifyingly bad from a persuasion standpoint. This kind of framing is preaching to your own choir here and is not persuasive at all. PS: I'd like to reiterate my following general statement that I think everybody can agree with. If you believe that climate change is a problem, nuclear is the only answer that solves it. If you don't believe that climate change is a problem, you should still want nuclear because it's clean and cheap energy that is capable of powering all human activity and industry. This is a win-win that anybody, regardless of worldview, should be able to get behind. |