Or maybe I just think for myself, look at the facts as best as they can be determined,
Think for yourself, but base your thinking on actual science: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/summary-for-policymakers/ Anything less than that puts you in the same category as the antivaxxer lunatics. But you’ve already clearly said that “anthropogenic global warming is only half real”, so I don’t know what the point of continuing this discussion is.
don’t buy into the ‘doom and gloom’ propaganda that says we’re all going to be dead from climate change in the next few years.
That’s a gross misrepresentation of what the science says and what climate-science-driven policy is about. Read the IPCC summary for policymakers and argue with facts, not with strawman arguments.
REASONABLE and moderate policy is fine
Yea, that’s the problem. Your Overton Window is out of calibration because you’re not based on reality but on vibes. What you consider “reasonable” is in fact already an extremist fantasy, because, counter-intiutively, your “normal” is an extremist unsustainable status quo.
Think for yourself, but base your thinking on actual science: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/summary-for-policymakers/ Anything less than that puts you in the same category as the antivaxxer lunatics. But you’ve already clearly said that “anthropogenic global warming is only half real”, so I don’t know what the point of continuing this discussion is.
That’s a gross misrepresentation of what the science says and what climate-science-driven policy is about. Read the IPCC summary for policymakers and argue with facts, not with strawman arguments.
Yea, that’s the problem. Your Overton Window is out of calibration because you’re not based on reality but on vibes. What you consider “reasonable” is in fact already an extremist fantasy, because, counter-intiutively, your “normal” is an extremist unsustainable status quo.