Yeah, I wholeheartedly encourage constructive debate and skepticism. However, it doesn’t excuse repeating shitty arguments without doing anything thinking or research just because it makes you feel less bad and lets you not do anything.
One example that particularly bothers me was “humans affect on the climate is less than a single volcanic eruption”. There are a lot of things you could not trust about scientific reporting, but the base premise of 8 billion people flying around the world using decomposed dinosaur mass is at least an order-of magnitude larger in scale compared to a single volcanic eruption. At that point, you’d have to believe that there isn’t really 8 billion people or that oil is actually from somewhere else.
In summary I agree, I just want to add nuance that this doesn’t excuse people acting in bad faith. It’s important that everyone, not just scientists, recognize their emotions and bias and challenge their own arguments against these (I.e. am I just making this argument because I feel defensive?)
Ok, so what I’m hearing is that you’re agreeing with me that it’s a silly argument, but for a different reason - that volcano’s are devastating and we shouldn’t settle for just “less than devastating”. Is that right?
It initially seemed like you were arguing that volcanoes are bigger that I was aware of, and therefore might be more impactful than humans on the environment. But that’s probably because people always argue online 😅
Yeah, I wholeheartedly encourage constructive debate and skepticism. However, it doesn’t excuse repeating shitty arguments without doing anything thinking or research just because it makes you feel less bad and lets you not do anything.
One example that particularly bothers me was “humans affect on the climate is less than a single volcanic eruption”. There are a lot of things you could not trust about scientific reporting, but the base premise of 8 billion people flying around the world using decomposed dinosaur mass is at least an order-of magnitude larger in scale compared to a single volcanic eruption. At that point, you’d have to believe that there isn’t really 8 billion people or that oil is actually from somewhere else.
In summary I agree, I just want to add nuance that this doesn’t excuse people acting in bad faith. It’s important that everyone, not just scientists, recognize their emotions and bias and challenge their own arguments against these (I.e. am I just making this argument because I feel defensive?)
volcanic eruptions can be pretty big btw
this one here caused a famine as a side effect for example
I’m aware. Do you have something more to say?
just saying, “humans cause less effect than a big volcano eruption” isn’t the gotcha that people seem to think
Ok, so what I’m hearing is that you’re agreeing with me that it’s a silly argument, but for a different reason - that volcano’s are devastating and we shouldn’t settle for just “less than devastating”. Is that right?
It initially seemed like you were arguing that volcanoes are bigger that I was aware of, and therefore might be more impactful than humans on the environment. But that’s probably because people always argue online 😅