#Nigeria scientific journalists debunking popular anti #GMO narratives distributed in #Africa by Western “environmental” activists and the reasons why they were relatively successful over the last 30 years:
Maybe they are even wrong when it comes to climate change?
Maybe it's driven by the sun, earths inclination and space dust?
Wouldn't that be a shocker given the billions and billions of dollars this industry is currently wasting!
As for me, I refuse to even listen to environmentalists who are not in favour of nuclear power. If they do not see that nuclear is the near term future, there is no common ground for further discussion.
There’s a very important distinction to be made here - scientists aren’t activists. The main difference is that when science is generally speaking in the language of probability, activism speaks in language of certainty, hype and simplification.
Scientific evidence for climate change being caused by human CO2 emissions is vast, I would consider it nearly as solid as law of universal gravitation today - the theory behind it is sound and consistent, and it’s consistent with experimental observations.
My problem with “environmental” activism is that it’s selective and often completely wrong. Where science -represented by IPCC - clearly says nuclear power and CRISPR are enablers to decarbonisation, activism - represented by #Greenpeace, #WWF etc - says exactly the opposite. They do say climate change is real, which is consistent with IPCC, but then they reject the whole IPCC package and selectively pick parts they like and those they don’t, in an entirely arbitrary manner.
And by their fierce insistence on doing things their way, they effectively only prevent actual decarbonisation.
I don't care about the CO2, but I do care about safe, modern and cheap power.
And I believe that people who are genuinely worried about climate change should use this methodology to persuade people like me to support them.
Arguing that we should go back to medieval times will just yield violence and mass protests like with europes farmers when peoples jobs and food will be threatened.
I don't believe in electric cars, yet, but give me an electric car that is cheaper and goes
That’s unfortunately a classic case study of how #ClimateChange activism as done by #Greenpeace#WWF works exactly against its goals:
Making far-fetching and exaggerated statements about what the climate change symptoms, easily ridiculing the careful, well-sourced and conditional predictions
Turning carefully worded IPCC probabilistic statements into simplistic certainties, further ridiculing actual scientific forecasts
Rushing mitigation goals which are described as “ambitious” but in reality are simply impossible to implement in the declared schedule, ridiculing the actual mitigation scenarios as proposed by IPCC and IEA
Cherry-picking from IPCC and IEA research, praising some solutions and discrediting others (e.g. nuclear), thus further ridiculing their mitigation scenarios and presenting them in the usual “even scientists can’t agree” sauce
In short, I can only encourage you to simply ignore any popular media reporting on climate change because it’s 99% guaranteed to repeat activist narratives, thus repeating the above problems.
Instead, if you go and read the actual IPCC and IEA “net zero” scenarios, which are not only clearly written but also use balanced language and are factually correct, you will see that the actual climate science has nothing to do with the activism and most of the (valid) questions you asked are already answered by them.
Well, I can say that much at least, that whenever a scientist gets to talk freely, everything is "ifs and buts" and probabilities and uncertainties, and generally they are much more open to being wrong and alternative explanations.
But yes, you are right, all those nuances are completely stripped off as soon as a politician, activist or media gets their hand on a statement.
Add comment