In all of your posts under this discussion you have yet to offer a single fact. Every statement you've made has either been your opinion, or unprovable. There is no basis for discussion unless we agree on what constitutes evidence. It's impossible to debate with someone who doesn't bring anything to the table. If you just want to trade opinions we can do that, but that makes it impossible for the discussion to go anywhere.
If you have no evidence other than intuition, gut feel, suspicions or conspiracy theories, then frankly you have nothing. There's literally nothing to talk about.
Here's an analogy: Suppose you're having a discussion with someone who fervently believes that vaccinations cause autism. They make the following statements:
- I heard on TV that vaccinations cause autism.
- It makes sense to me that autism is caused by vaccinations.
- The people who make vaccines are making a lot of money off of them, so of course they don't want to stop them.
- Science has been wrong about things before, so when scientists say vaccines don't cause autism, I don't trust them.
- This one kid got a vaccination, and then they turned autistic.
Now, which of these statements are provable, and thereby worth discussion? Not "true" - true or false can be determined later. But provable. Which statements are amenable to discussion, and debate, and the application of evidence? The rest is literally filler. It adds nothing to the discussion, no matter how loudly the anti-vaxxer may shout it.
That's exactly what it's like talking to climate change deniers such as yourself. This is not just a discussion about climate change. This is a discussion about standards of evidence, and level of discourse, and what kind of thought and inference should be used when making decisions that affect billions of people. It's about human progress, which you claim to be an advocate of. Technological progress comes from rigorous engineering, application of the scientific method, and logical thought. You literally cannot be a fan of science and technology without admitting that that mindset is what got us this far. To abandon it when it doesn't fit your preconceptions is hypocritical at best.
This has nothing to do with what is popular, or what is liberal, or which way (if any) this particular discussion board leans. It has everything to do with how you have a meaningful discussion about any controversial topic. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to do better. If not, carry on.
I love how mad you are! I also love that no matter how many times I say it, you keep coming at me with the same arguments.
Here are the facts that I am offering:
FACT 1) Even if climate change is real
, I don't agree with pursuing a policy of changing anything about our current energy infrastructure.
FACT 2) The current carbon-based energy infrastructure has proven to be an excellent platform for technological and societal growth and evolution.
FACT 3) Emerging technologies (like 3D printing) will transform the economic and manufacturing landscape of the entire world more than we can imagine in the next 50 years.
OPINION 1) Unless "green energy" changes could somehow be created and implemented all over the world in short order, there's no way to change the current world-wide trend towards building or extending the current carbon-based energy infrastructure.
OPINION 2) Non-compliance from emerging nations and totalitarian governments, combined with the natural economic and political competition between nations make world-wide adoption of said theoretical "green energy" changes a virtual impossibility.
OPINION 3) We shouldn't even try and change the current infrastructure. We should simply rely on the market forces that drive innovation and invention, rather than imposing new and draconic restrictions on those same forces.
That's it - that's the totality of my position. Not that hard to understand, and hardly a vicious attack on anybody. And to be frank, while I'm not a climatologist, I haven't heard one single person refute a single one of those points.
But here's an interesting collection of the tenor of terms used to reply to me:
- false claims
- willfully ignorant
- blissfully stupid
- small minded
- martyr complex
This is the kind of thing that I find sad: that people like you are developing this weird, group-think where everybody has to have the same opinion or else be castigated. Especially here on E, where open minds are supposed to be welcomed and encouraged.
I'm not surprised that more moderate voices (like the post by Retribution for example) are hesitant at best to speak up in public conversation when there's this level of knee-jerk hostility present. Funny that he agreed with me, huh?
If you wonder why people aren't a little more receptive to your message, maybe take a look at the messenger ;-)