Its been dizzying going back and going to make sure arguments and claims I took as not worth the time because they have to be wrong only to find that I accepted shallow dismissals done with condescending tone to what amounts to the most important concerns of our day. From healthcare reform, to foreign policy, to the pandemic response, to the childhood schedule, to virology. I'm sorry but it has made me now skeptical about how real global warming but I haven't really taken the time to understand both sides of that. the problem is what do you get for your trouble...a depressing world of problems so big as to be unapproachable and uncomfortable/unavoidable conflict as what were obvious-go-along-with-everyone-else decisions are now battle grounds.
I felt exactly the same and was heading towards the climate denial that was all over health freedom. i did decide to look into it and so far all the denial is easily debunked and the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is pretty overwhelming. Added to that both the Tories and the miserable left wing excuses have abandoned green policies and MSM is calling climate activists a mob - so i am pretty sure that heading in the opposite direction to the political and media elite is the right way to go.
I really take your point and hear you about 'what did i get for the trouble of looking into?'. A great big pile of doom. West Antarctic scientist Dr Gibz says, and i agree with her, that what we need now is courage not hope.
And yes conflict with both health freedom and climate scientists.
Mostly i get the satisfaction of knowing that i didn't go along with anyone on either side and try to take each day on earth as it turns around the sun as it comes.
There is a buddhist saying 'nothing happens next' - we live in each moment as it comes. This is it. This is life.
What is clear is that true objectivity is a personality trait that most people don't possess. People can be objective when their inclinations and reality align ... but then when they don't align they lose any sense of objectivity which means they're not really objective because you cannot really be objective selectively, to be objective you must always be objective.
I have to say I'm starting to have serious doubts about climate change myself. It feels like rather a battle when the vast majority of those recognising the virology/covid scam (you're the only exceptions as far as I can tell) think climate change is a hoax too. I'm out on a limb believing the moon landings, however, the moon landings are much simpler than climate change which is so very much more complex and does seem to involve manipulation whether it's a real problem or not.
The other thing that climate scientists don't do is recognise the geoengineering that is clearly happening and we have to wonder what effect that might be having on the climate.
And just to add I was banned by Skeptical Science, the site John Cook founded, by the current administrator. Unbelievable considering my comments (on an article on "conspiracy" and "covid") are always perfectly respectful. It was absurd how before the banning the "moderator" kept editing and deleting comments on silly grounds and even deleted the case I made of 10 points because according to him 10 points constituted a Gish Gallop when the reason I made 10 points was simply to make my case as compelling as possible. Seriously, when you have that level of bias-caused stupid you really have to wonder.
Its been dizzying going back and going to make sure arguments and claims I took as not worth the time because they have to be wrong only to find that I accepted shallow dismissals done with condescending tone to what amounts to the most important concerns of our day. From healthcare reform, to foreign policy, to the pandemic response, to the childhood schedule, to virology. I'm sorry but it has made me now skeptical about how real global warming but I haven't really taken the time to understand both sides of that. the problem is what do you get for your trouble...a depressing world of problems so big as to be unapproachable and uncomfortable/unavoidable conflict as what were obvious-go-along-with-everyone-else decisions are now battle grounds.
I felt exactly the same and was heading towards the climate denial that was all over health freedom. i did decide to look into it and so far all the denial is easily debunked and the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is pretty overwhelming. Added to that both the Tories and the miserable left wing excuses have abandoned green policies and MSM is calling climate activists a mob - so i am pretty sure that heading in the opposite direction to the political and media elite is the right way to go.
I really take your point and hear you about 'what did i get for the trouble of looking into?'. A great big pile of doom. West Antarctic scientist Dr Gibz says, and i agree with her, that what we need now is courage not hope.
And yes conflict with both health freedom and climate scientists.
Mostly i get the satisfaction of knowing that i didn't go along with anyone on either side and try to take each day on earth as it turns around the sun as it comes.
There is a buddhist saying 'nothing happens next' - we live in each moment as it comes. This is it. This is life.
Yes I posted critical comments on this article https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-plandemic-and-the-seven-traits-of-conspiratorial-thinking-138483 whose co-authors include John Cook and emailed both John and Stephan Lewandowsky. No reply from John and Stephan dropped out when the going got tough.
What is clear is that true objectivity is a personality trait that most people don't possess. People can be objective when their inclinations and reality align ... but then when they don't align they lose any sense of objectivity which means they're not really objective because you cannot really be objective selectively, to be objective you must always be objective.
I have to say I'm starting to have serious doubts about climate change myself. It feels like rather a battle when the vast majority of those recognising the virology/covid scam (you're the only exceptions as far as I can tell) think climate change is a hoax too. I'm out on a limb believing the moon landings, however, the moon landings are much simpler than climate change which is so very much more complex and does seem to involve manipulation whether it's a real problem or not.
The other thing that climate scientists don't do is recognise the geoengineering that is clearly happening and we have to wonder what effect that might be having on the climate.
And just to add I was banned by Skeptical Science, the site John Cook founded, by the current administrator. Unbelievable considering my comments (on an article on "conspiracy" and "covid") are always perfectly respectful. It was absurd how before the banning the "moderator" kept editing and deleting comments on silly grounds and even deleted the case I made of 10 points because according to him 10 points constituted a Gish Gallop when the reason I made 10 points was simply to make my case as compelling as possible. Seriously, when you have that level of bias-caused stupid you really have to wonder.