I think it’s more about scientists being extremely conservative with their estimates, because they know they’ll get impaled over being ‘alarmist.’
And then (effectively) fired from their job.
Also, you should check out conservative coverage. There is no timeline compression, its strait up cynicism, hostile denial.
EDIT: I forgot hand wringing. A perfect example: fairly scientific family showed me a WSJ article about how future geoengineering is going to make climate change a non-issue.
“Offended” did not begin to describe my reaction.
I’ve been reading geoengineering research papers for years, and they amount to things like:
Well, if we redirected a significant portion of the global economy to custom airplane and chemical production, we could rain sulfuric acid over the poles and wipe out all life beyond a certain latitude, and maybe counter the warming some if we keep it up… ecological implications aside, its still rather impractical, but an order of magnitude cheaper than previous proposals. Shows table.
I feel like some counters should immediately banish the speaker to sitting in the corner. “Alarmist” and “divisive” are the top two that come to mind. It’s almost always idiots not engaging with the material in good faith who pop those out.
If someone is just trolling, sure. But usually I hear it when someone’s like “gay people should be allowed to live” and someone else goes “you’re being diViSiVe”
Well there’s no retort to that. If you’re in a debate environment where an acceptable critique is “well, these people existing is not part of our beliefs, so its not okay,” then the whole debate is rigged from the start.
I think it’s more about scientists being extremely conservative with their estimates, because they know they’ll get impaled over being ‘alarmist.’
And then (effectively) fired from their job.
Also, you should check out conservative coverage. There is no timeline compression, its strait up cynicism, hostile denial.
EDIT: I forgot hand wringing. A perfect example: fairly scientific family showed me a WSJ article about how future geoengineering is going to make climate change a non-issue.
“Offended” did not begin to describe my reaction.
I’ve been reading geoengineering research papers for years, and they amount to things like:
I feel like some counters should immediately banish the speaker to sitting in the corner. “Alarmist” and “divisive” are the top two that come to mind. It’s almost always idiots not engaging with the material in good faith who pop those out.
I dunno about “divisive.” Sometimes thats a legitimate criticism, and pot-stirrers are little shits, IMO.
If someone is just trolling, sure. But usually I hear it when someone’s like “gay people should be allowed to live” and someone else goes “you’re being diViSiVe”
Well there’s no retort to that. If you’re in a debate environment where an acceptable critique is “well, these people existing is not part of our beliefs, so its not okay,” then the whole debate is rigged from the start.