![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
glenatronNo, it's no good, having just posted about how irritable I am and then thinking about Anthropogenic Climate Change and those who voice their stupid opinions about it has made me really annoyed.
I guess my starting point is this story which is discussing how people say things like "We can't even predict the weather tomorrow- how can we possibly predict that the world is warming up?" They say things like that because they are morons. The responses to it annoyed me enough that I had to add one myself, but the essence of any argument on ACC seems to go like this:
A: "I think it's reasonable to follow the scientific consensus that suggests that humans are responsible for a long-term increase in global warming?"
B: "Oh, a scientific consensus is it now? I think you'll find there is no such thing. It's just the government trying to find excuses for new taxes!"
A: "So what would be the word for the majority of the world's scientists agreeing about something?"
B: "Al Gore!
A: "I'm sorry?"
B: "You love Al Gore you do. You and him have sloppy makouts the whole time!"
A: "You're trying to change the subject, I'm talking about Climate Change!"
B: "Yes, and in the seventies they said there would be an ice age and was there? So you're wrong."
A: "Who is this they? Are you referring to a couple of climatologists and The Clash?"
B: "You're stinky!
A: "That's not an argument"
B: "Look! I've got a puppet of you and one of Al Gore! You're kissing Al Gore! Kissy kissy kissy!!!"
A: *sigh*
And that is literally the entire debate. I'm trying to work out what on earth they are so afraid of. What do these people think is going to happen to them if the climatologists are right? They're embarrassingly desperate for any shred of argument they can hold up to shield them from the idea that the people whose work is to study this subject might be right. It's as though they just want to be contrary for the sake of it, like they're building a new science purely on the power of selecting only evidence that suits you and pure stupid. Welcome to the endarkenment.
Of course, it's not my job to understand the climate and I haven't dedicated the years of study to it that I would need to in order to make an informed judgement. But people who have put in that kind of work all seem to think that ACC is happening so I'm willing to go with that. I don't think that there's anything we can do about it, though - there is too much inertia in the systems that we would have to change and when you bunch people together into society we can be characterised as fat, lazy, stupid, selfish and wasteful. The only thing that's going to stop us is an external control- at best something like the Hubbert Peak at worst the result of the wars over water, inhabitable land and other resources that will be increasingly in short supply as things get hotter and the climate gets increasingly unstable.
It could well be that future generations look back on this time as a golden age of peace and prosperity, so lets enjoy the things we have while we have them.
I guess my starting point is this story which is discussing how people say things like "We can't even predict the weather tomorrow- how can we possibly predict that the world is warming up?" They say things like that because they are morons. The responses to it annoyed me enough that I had to add one myself, but the essence of any argument on ACC seems to go like this:
A: "I think it's reasonable to follow the scientific consensus that suggests that humans are responsible for a long-term increase in global warming?"
B: "Oh, a scientific consensus is it now? I think you'll find there is no such thing. It's just the government trying to find excuses for new taxes!"
A: "So what would be the word for the majority of the world's scientists agreeing about something?"
B: "Al Gore!
A: "I'm sorry?"
B: "You love Al Gore you do. You and him have sloppy makouts the whole time!"
A: "You're trying to change the subject, I'm talking about Climate Change!"
B: "Yes, and in the seventies they said there would be an ice age and was there? So you're wrong."
A: "Who is this they? Are you referring to a couple of climatologists and The Clash?"
B: "You're stinky!
A: "That's not an argument"
B: "Look! I've got a puppet of you and one of Al Gore! You're kissing Al Gore! Kissy kissy kissy!!!"
A: *sigh*
And that is literally the entire debate. I'm trying to work out what on earth they are so afraid of. What do these people think is going to happen to them if the climatologists are right? They're embarrassingly desperate for any shred of argument they can hold up to shield them from the idea that the people whose work is to study this subject might be right. It's as though they just want to be contrary for the sake of it, like they're building a new science purely on the power of selecting only evidence that suits you and pure stupid. Welcome to the endarkenment.
Of course, it's not my job to understand the climate and I haven't dedicated the years of study to it that I would need to in order to make an informed judgement. But people who have put in that kind of work all seem to think that ACC is happening so I'm willing to go with that. I don't think that there's anything we can do about it, though - there is too much inertia in the systems that we would have to change and when you bunch people together into society we can be characterised as fat, lazy, stupid, selfish and wasteful. The only thing that's going to stop us is an external control- at best something like the Hubbert Peak at worst the result of the wars over water, inhabitable land and other resources that will be increasingly in short supply as things get hotter and the climate gets increasingly unstable.
It could well be that future generations look back on this time as a golden age of peace and prosperity, so lets enjoy the things we have while we have them.