>>13882052>Can you not see?ok, i'll bite.
personal and anecdotal experience doesn't mean shit. i've personally experienced the opposite.
policy makers have actively been choosing (whether intentionally, or not, the effect has been for the negative) policies to worsen disasters. for example, floodings in europe - "cleaning the riverbed that your forefathers have done for a thousand years is now not environmentally friendly, despite the local houses being literally built of sediment".
i've noticed there's a tendency recently to name every storm, even in europe, there are several "alert" levels (wtf is amber alert? and why does it mean no danger whatsoever?)
one underage girl who is being exploited by her narcissitic parents and corrupt politiciuans is being hailed as the new jesus christ, despite the fact she's just a child that needs mental help and is having her childhood ruined, but another girl who was out debating the opposing views got labelled as a nazi and had death threats sent to her until she quit. keeping with the christ theme, she even got labelled as "anti-gretta" for fucks sake.
this is not about science. it's not been about science since at least 90s, if not before. this is a cult, trying to become new age religion, and breaking the conditioning is very hard. you can not doubt, you can not question, you are literally labelled as a monster if you present a challenge.
you will be labelled anti intellectual, murderer, racist, even a nazi.
https://anglicanmainstream.org/climate-change-skeptics-the-new-nazis-says-justin-welby/challenge and questioning is something that actual scientists crave. constructive criticism. if something isn't bullshit it will withstand scrutiny. if it can't withstand criticism, should we reallyb be making political decisions about it?
problem is, truth is irrelevant, the debate doesn't involve facts, but emotions.
