This fight has never been fair mate. Oil companies have held back their own studies for decades because those studies weren’t distortable enough to match their views. They do not need scientists paid by “the alternative power industry” to prove them wrong, they managed that themselves.
There is a quote from a very good HBO series that fits quite well here: “Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later that debt is paid.”
Apart from that, the comparison to Nazi Germany is used in such a sloppy way that it (even if unintended) casualizes the National Socialist ideology. There is a HUGE difference between censoring information regarded as wrong and National Socialism, like bolstering nationalist identity or discrediting and exterminating (or at least attempting to exterminate) other races - just to name a few examples. So for the sake of its danger please do not use it as a buzzword to overemphasize your point.
But climate is not an opinion. It doesn’t change just because the debate forces it to. Politics is debatable, economics is debatable, climate is scientific. Science is where you have to prove your point by providing actual evidence instead of saying “well I think it is so and therefore I am right”… And not just that, your evidence has to be reproducible and is getting reviewed by a plethora of other scientists with most of them having their lives devoted to that subject.
In the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
And therefore you should keep it shut until you can provide actual independent source based evidence that your points are valid but as it stands after decades of research on climate even oil companies have given in to the facts and are now trying to greenwash themselves by “offsetting emissions” and - with all respect - the only ones that are still backing climate change denial are profiting off of it, trolls that don’t actually mean what they say and think they are sooo clever by showing everyone how big of douchebags they are, or the stupid followers of first and second.
You haven’t paid any attention to the conversation you entered. I’m not your opposition. I’ve got nothing against climate change. I’m here to point out how your tactics for convincing people are fascist and wrong. It’s also just as possible that we are wrong and silencing our opposition is NOT science.
Calling something a fact didn’t mean it’s not debatable. Facts are literally the only thing that can be debated. I can say that the ocean has no water. That’s a fact. That doesn’t make the fact true or undebatable.
You need to learn how logic works before bringing your language to a compiler.
A fact needs to be true to be called “fact”, therefore a fact cannot be false as long as it is a fact. Of course, facts can later be proven wrong revoking their status as a fact.
With debate I meant subjective opinionated debate. My bad, I should have made that more clear. Objective debate & research is what makes science science.
Ofc we can debate, whether it is good to censor information. Censorship is / has been done by almost every country (democratic or not), mainly in times of war, during a dictatorship, or in a (political) crisis as a measure of directing the political course and to gain stability. Of course, restrictive censorship may lead to dissatisfaction or dumb decisions by the government if criticism is silenced.
The way I see it, the discourse should be held freely as long as it isn’t harmful for anybody. An example, if someone says murder should be legalized or that killing a certain ethnicity is the right thing to do, censorship and exclusion is in my opinion the right thing to do since you are taking measurements to protect lives.
Climate change (if not stopped) is very likely to pose a direct or indirect threat to millions of people and every year of discussion brings us closer to the climate crisis resulting in: 1st mass migration (with the current sentiment towards migration worldwide it’s likely those people won’t be helped), 2nd war on resources and 3rd a global financial crisis. And this is why I think censoring climate change denial is correct (there’s nothing wrong with objective criticism, I am talking about outright denial).
But I gotta admit it’s hard where to draw the line.
Bro are you okay
There you go with the discrediting right on queue.
If you’re going to fight for what you think is right, fight the right way or I’ll never recognize you.
This fight has never been fair mate. Oil companies have held back their own studies for decades because those studies weren’t distortable enough to match their views. They do not need scientists paid by “the alternative power industry” to prove them wrong, they managed that themselves.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
There is a quote from a very good HBO series that fits quite well here: “Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later that debt is paid.”
https://piped.video/watch?v=adhkn9lt76c
Apart from that, the comparison to Nazi Germany is used in such a sloppy way that it (even if unintended) casualizes the National Socialist ideology. There is a HUGE difference between censoring information regarded as wrong and National Socialism, like bolstering nationalist identity or discrediting and exterminating (or at least attempting to exterminate) other races - just to name a few examples. So for the sake of its danger please do not use it as a buzzword to overemphasize your point.
You’re all calling for your opposition to be silenced and you’re tone policing me. Ironic.
But climate is not an opinion. It doesn’t change just because the debate forces it to. Politics is debatable, economics is debatable, climate is scientific. Science is where you have to prove your point by providing actual evidence instead of saying “well I think it is so and therefore I am right”… And not just that, your evidence has to be reproducible and is getting reviewed by a plethora of other scientists with most of them having their lives devoted to that subject.
In the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
And therefore you should keep it shut until you can provide actual independent source based evidence that your points are valid but as it stands after decades of research on climate even oil companies have given in to the facts and are now trying to greenwash themselves by “offsetting emissions” and - with all respect - the only ones that are still backing climate change denial are profiting off of it, trolls that don’t actually mean what they say and think they are sooo clever by showing everyone how big of douchebags they are, or the stupid followers of first and second.
You haven’t paid any attention to the conversation you entered. I’m not your opposition. I’ve got nothing against climate change. I’m here to point out how your tactics for convincing people are fascist and wrong. It’s also just as possible that we are wrong and silencing our opposition is NOT science.
Calling something a fact didn’t mean it’s not debatable. Facts are literally the only thing that can be debated. I can say that the ocean has no water. That’s a fact. That doesn’t make the fact true or undebatable.
You need to learn how logic works before bringing your language to a compiler.
I read that: sorry if I phrased it like you were a climate change denier. It was meant to be more general.
Definition of the word fact:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact_(disambiguation)
A fact needs to be true to be called “fact”, therefore a fact cannot be false as long as it is a fact. Of course, facts can later be proven wrong revoking their status as a fact.
With debate I meant subjective opinionated debate. My bad, I should have made that more clear. Objective debate & research is what makes science science.
Ofc we can debate, whether it is good to censor information. Censorship is / has been done by almost every country (democratic or not), mainly in times of war, during a dictatorship, or in a (political) crisis as a measure of directing the political course and to gain stability. Of course, restrictive censorship may lead to dissatisfaction or dumb decisions by the government if criticism is silenced.
The way I see it, the discourse should be held freely as long as it isn’t harmful for anybody. An example, if someone says murder should be legalized or that killing a certain ethnicity is the right thing to do, censorship and exclusion is in my opinion the right thing to do since you are taking measurements to protect lives.
Climate change (if not stopped) is very likely to pose a direct or indirect threat to millions of people and every year of discussion brings us closer to the climate crisis resulting in: 1st mass migration (with the current sentiment towards migration worldwide it’s likely those people won’t be helped), 2nd war on resources and 3rd a global financial crisis. And this is why I think censoring climate change denial is correct (there’s nothing wrong with objective criticism, I am talking about outright denial).
But I gotta admit it’s hard where to draw the line.
If climate change kills everyone, everyone will be better off. Can’t suffer when we don’t exist.