LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Antityranicals wrote:1. On the grounds that they are largely funded by the government, which stands to prosper immensely at people panicking and believing that socialism, which is what every climate politician inevitably suggests, is the only way to save themselves. Besides, the climate consensus isn't nearly as broad as it is thought to be. There are plenty of intellectually savvy dissidents.
2. "Transition to renewables" is simply not possible at our current technology levels. The market will decide when "transition to renewables" is economically viable, and when it does, I promise you, I will not hold on to fossil fuels.
3. It's a lot less expensive to do what the Netherlands did and reclaim land from the sea than to stop using fossil fuels. The damage costs caused by burning fossil fuels per ton, even if you assume that that actually is what is causing the earth to warm, is less than a cent, as opposed to the hundreds of dollars that each ton can add to the economy.
4. And none of these technologies would have been possible without cheap energy from fossil fuel.
5. If you are hurt by climate change, and you can prove that someone or a group of someones actually caused that, I'd have no problem with you suing. But since such a lawsuit would likely be laughed out of a courtroom, I see no reason why the law should do what civil courts won't.
1. "Socialism" isn't really objectively definable, but honestly, if you don't put it past the average scientist to accept bribery from fearmongers, why put it past
2. The cat's out of the bag on "market" solutions, since the fossil fuel industry has already accepted millions of dollars in subsidies. It's too late to know what a true "market" solution would have looked like. Not that the "market" has any real mechanism to deter pollution.
3. If Americans were as competent as the Dutch, you might have a point. In the USA, levees fail and thousands die. Also, we could still theoretically go the levee route if we had a clearer plan to prevent levee failure, as long as the people responsible for climate change have to foot the bill for making it necessary in the first place.
4. Yeah, and I'm posting from land stolen from indigenous Canadians. Matters of chance are not immune from criticism. The question is where we go from here.
5. We're ALL harmed by climate change and letting only the most litigious amongst us claim compensation would be ridiculous. It'd be more efficient to seek compensation from the fossil fuel industry toward ALL of climate change's victims.
1. There's also the fact that most climate scientists become climate scientists because they believe that climate science is important, and most people who believe that climate science is important believe this is so precisely because of the global warming narrative.
2. Sure, let's end fossil fuel subsidies. And renewable subsidies. And all other subsidies. Then, we'll see what sinks and what floats. If renewables prove cheaper, than sure, I'm behind them.
3. The payment issue here goes back to #5.
4. We continue to take the actions which have lead to less climate deaths in the past. Duh.
5. So a class action suit? I'd be fine with that.
