You’re right, there is no functional difference between saying that there is a substantial chance that the scientists are wrong about climate change causing another pandemic, and claiming that wizards exist.
Those are exactly the same statement.
Thank god I had a smart cookie like you around to confirm that those statements are, indeed, identical by every possible metric.
The statements are NOT identical in reality, but they follow the same fallacy which seems to be core in your argument.
Who are you to judge the weight of each scientific proposal?
^ And here is where it starts.
You (and the person you are arguing on behalf of).....
first off, i have absolutely no clue who you're arguing with. I'm literally only replying to you.
.....proclaim that we should not think critically or form our own opinions and should instead defer to “scientists“ for any and all matters. This ideology doesn’t really work for matter that is contentious even among scientists, and in this case the premise is entirely conjectural. Any shmuck can say “(X) is going to happen!”. If that is the barrier to entry for something being accepted as science, then surely you must believe that Nostradamus is the greatest academic mind in the history of humanity, to the point of making Einstein look like a water-headed lobotomite.
And
this is the conclusion i was alluding to, and i saw it coming a mile away from the language you used in the first post i quoted. See, the problem with your logic is that you have a very abstract concept of what "
contentious" means in the context of science.
I think, in your mind, this concept is alot less rigid than it actually is in practice. You're setting yourself up to be able to say "
if they can't claim it with 100% certainty, then I don't have to take their conclusion into consideration with any more weight than another". Which is a strawman position to take, firstly because no science is "100%", but mainly because it essentially means that you're able to bypass
the most important part of the scientific process -- Scientific Consensus.
Multiverse theory is contentious. Black Holes are contentious. The design of reactors pursuing fusion energy on earth, VERY contentious.
Climate
change is
NOT a contentious subject in science, and no amount of saying otherwise will change this because the overwhelming majority of scientists all assert the same thing. You can argue about the implications all you like, but the CONSENSUS is:
1) it's definitely happening
2) we are definitely causing it, and
3) it's going to be very bad for every living thing on earth when it reaches a certain point.
saying "I dont deny the science" but then crying over the specifics of #3 is fucking asinine because if you believe any one part of the science that confirms this, it's almost impossible to veer away from an endgame that isn't catastrophically bad. That's just a fact.
On matters on conjecture, especially the future effects of climate change, the alarmist scientists do not have a great track record. How many climate-induced doomsdays were supposed to have happened by now? How many are still set to happen? Are they still holding on to “12 years”, or have they finally moved on to a further date that makes them look slightly less ridiculous? This shit reminds me of Y2K or Harold Camping.
If you're going to focus on alarmist scientists, then why aren't you focusing on the comparatively quiet ones who have been echoing the same things for decades, and who's "WORST CASE SCENARIO OUTCOME" projections are consistently beaten and replaced with even more ridiculous "worst case scenarios"? The effects of climate change have been wrecking this planet for YEARS.......just not yet to the point where it actively is wrecking
humans, which are famous for surviving regardless of minute changes that would drive a lesser species to extinction. But at that point it will already be recursively accelerating and far too late to do anything about it.
So if you claim to actually pay attention to the opinions of "scientists", why do you choose to only take the accounts of THE most extreme and politicized scientists you can find? Especially when you know that the scientific community that compiles and engines all this data into readable predictions are abundant? I don't buy it.
Since you seem to have a hard time with reading comprehension, let me perfectly clear. I am not saying that we should never listen to scientists. I’m not saying that climate change isn’t real. Hell, I’m not even saying that they’re necessarily wrong about this particular claim.
What I am saying is that I know better than to blindly believe the words of politicized scientists making alarmist claims speculating large-scale threats to humanity. Claims which are then pushed by mainstream media because headlines that convey the message of “OMG humanity will be wiped out” tend to get a lot of clicks and viewtime from stupid people.
Then don't listen to the alarmists. Fucking done,
wasn't that easy?
There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers with citations on climate science that end in potentially horrible scenarios for humanity that you can go read for yourself without all the dumbfuck screaming going on between non-scientists. You have access to Google just like everyone else.
It sounds to me like your decision on who to pay attention to is guided more by politics than by actual science. Just because one side has "alarmists" doesn't change anything.
There were "alarmists" about nuclear weapons. Did the world end? No. Are nuclear weapons a severe threat to human civilization? Absolutely. We literally go to war over the possibility of them.
Perhaps you should spend less time talking about how awful my skepticism is, and more time criticizing the alarmism that’s actually been making climate-change discourse a complete shitshow.
Honestly, i don't really give a fuck. Why i should be vocally responsible for the idiots on one side when
NOBODY seems to be responsible for the idiots on the other, who instead of being alarmist for
heeding scientists are just actively dismissive, to the point we have entire swathes of stupid ass humans taking the opinions of
literal politicians with ZERO scientific background at face value, over people who dedicate their lives to informing the public/governments on how to keep humanity safe. The "other side" is actively fueling an anti-science sentiment in the nation. If you think alarmists forcing people to think about the environment more is worse than encouraging fucking idiots to believe
literally whatever they want to, then i don't really know what to say to you.
Anyway, anyone who has actually (
ACTUALLY) read any of the real science on this would understand that the real threat of climate change is not the
weather, but the destablizing effects it's going to have on the ecosystems and relatively stable world economy that absolutely cannot deal with the pressure of a globally changing climate.
And also, honestly? I didn't even know you were a skeptic. But like i said, the language you used in your original post made it very obvious that you likely were. "Skeptical" and "Scientific" are NOT the same thing. Inquisitiveness is far more important, skepticism is just something that naturally follows.
