Zynerji wrote: ↑11 Aug 2022, 15:19
DChemTech wrote: ↑11 Aug 2022, 14:54
Zynerji wrote: ↑11 Aug 2022, 01:00
You can show all the papers you want, it literally is only opinions and doctored data.
I can see the obvious need to not be wasteful of energy, and even intelligent design leading to energy conservation. Those are the largest impacts we can make as humans by paying attention to our own usage.
To pretend that forcing people to buy EVs and convert to renewables by the sword is anything BUT taking us to a society that is "better". Just because a few folks that stand to gain fame and fortune from that scenario intelligently implant false notions into our minds through NLP strategies and data mining to sway the opinion-as-fact echo chamber towards their goals.
Until I can ask God the question directly, I'll remain a skeptic of all things human.
Asserting that there is no evidence for climate change, then moving on to say data is doctored without evidence. Absolutely disgusting.
But hey, it must be really convenient if you can dismiss everything you don't like as being a conspiracy.
There is plenty of evidence of revisions to historic data (they modify data like they modify word definitions) , and whistle blowers in the NOAA that have come forward. Try a duckduckgo search instead of Google for unsuppressed results.
And any time there is hysteria backed by mega money and leading towards a kind of financial or governmental obligation, I will intrinsically push back.
You have zero privileges that give you authority to tell others how to live, and you vent that frustration by pressuring the government to so it for you.
That is a personal problem that needs a psychiatrist, not a crusade of the unprovable.
And all that 'doctoring' - which is actually just regular data processing - has been widely addressed and explained in both scientific publications and popular scientific discourse. Most of the rest is just quotes by scientists that are widely pulled out of context (on which ample information can be found). There is nothing mysterious there, nothing held back, nothing conspiratorial. And google/duckduckgo will get you ample support for anything. Be it a flat earth, 911 was an inside job, or denialism of general relativity or so. Such things have nothing to do with scepticism; scepticism means considering alternatives rather than mindless assertion, and checking where the evidence leads. It does not mean blatantly opposing whatever is the popular opinion and digging for 'evidence' to support that opposition. And it is no wonder the true sceptics, being scientists, overwhelmingly back anthropogenic climate change.
Pushing this back as me 'being upset' is just delusional, but considering the statements you are making that is not surprising (yes, ad hominem. After nearly 20 years of politely addressing such regurgutated bogus, I really don't care anymore. What sensible discourse can honestly be held if one party simply denies reality without rational proof?)
And remember, accepting science is not the same as 'being told how to live'. Living is about how act given the boudary conditions of reality. And sure, within that scope you can decide to pollute all you want, and don't give a single thought to the impact on fellow humans and next generations. But if you do so, I am well within my right to think you are an egocentric b..thole.
Also, a CO2 tax does not limit your right to live as you wish. You can chose to act as you want, it just forces you to take responsibility for your actions (through buying off the damages). And yes, freedom of choice comes with responsibility for consequences. Libertarians like to forget that second part.