- 129comments
- 22comments
- 35comments
- 38comments
- 15comments
- 259comments
- 10comments
- 2comments
- 12comments
- 2comments
- 3comments
- 88comments
- 101comments
- 2comments
- 13comments
- 823comments
- 288comments
- 6comments
- 13comments
- 1comments
- 58comments
- 75comments
- 248comments
- 95comments
- 1comments
- 16comments
- 30comments
- 261comments
- 33comments
- 69comments
Here, there are 2 sides arguing. One claims the other is advocating destroying the environment, the other claims the former is manufacturing fake crisis.
Either none has proven their right (or were not effective enough that the other side can’t manipulate the truth), but to me, one argument has more permanent and damaging consequences than the other if it were true.
So how much skin in the game do climate change deniers have? What are they willing to indemnify the world if they turn out to be wrong since this is a planetary issue, not a national issue?
Right now we’re just making bets no?
It is a mistake to think that every vocal climate change denier actually believes what they are saying.
Some people are just true believer useful idiots parroting what Tucker Carlson told them, but not every climate change denier falls into that bucket.
The reason Trump's handlers want him to acquire Greenland is they know climate change is real and their plan is to profit from it rather than do anything to stop it or slow it down. You can't just come out and say that though, so you have to remain a climate change denier in public.
I think this cartoon (from 2009(!)) illustrates the asymmetry between the two positions:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Pett#/media/File:What_if_...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_if_it%27s_a_big_hoax_and_...