Illusion said:
The very people who you are trusting on the topic of climate change are telling you that it is already impossible to stop climate change and that we are headed for a global catastrophe. In fact, just to have a chance at avoiding a catastrophe, they are saying that the world needs to increase its spending by 20 times over current levels between now and 2050: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/12/cost-to-save-the-world-cop21/ The cost of "fighting climate change" is far greater than losing a bit of money. This level of expenditure is simply impossible for most western countries that are already racking up massive defecits with aging populations that are getting older by the year. In practice, fighting climate change means that you will not be able to afford a car, you will not be flying, and your kids probably will never have jobs. So given that the cost is insurmountable, why don't we actually ask some serious questions about the science before we start handing over billions of dollars in tax money to people who could very easily be using the science as a fake religion to get rich off of people. Why are some of the most crooked corporations out there like Goldman Sachs such big supporters of climate change? Furthermore, do not trust everything you hear, especially when the source needs to keep insisting that it is the only truthful viewpoint on the subject. One of the things I have discovered in life is that the truth doesn't need to boast about itself, it actually welcomes dissent because argument only makes it stronger. The climate change group, however, wants to jail all "deniers." How can you look at that kind of argument and not think about the inquisition? Case in point, remember how every economist out there was telling us that Brexit or Trump would mean the end of the economy and a massive stock market crash? At the time the MSM was insisting that there was scientific consensus on these topics but obviously they were dead wrong on both accounts. Twisting science for a political agenda is actually a very effective tool to shut down dissent. Most scientists will never speak out against a political agenda because they can lose their careers for being politically incorrect and those who do speak out get made an example of (like that poor French weather reporter). |
We won't be able to totally solve the problem, but we could at least try to reduce it. We can do a lot of things, without puting ourselves in big trouble right now. For example, if we would just stop eating meat, we already save millions of lives (and we would also save a lot of money).
You're saying that we don't have to trust everything we hear. So we shouldn't blindly trust either side of the climate debate. But assuming that we don't know anything about it ourselves, it makes a lot more sense for us to believe in climate change:
1. Almost all people who have researched the topic say that climate change is real.
2. The consequences of not believing in climate change are a lot worse than the consequences of believing in climate change. (No matter how much we have to pay, millions of people dying is still worse.)
3. People who deny climate change, have a lot more reasons to do that out of their own interest.
No, I don't remember anyone saying that the Brexit or Trump would mean a massive stock crash, but I do remember that some people said they could be bad for the economy. And indeed, yesterday I read in the newspaper that the British economy is growing slower than any other economy in the world.
