I was reading a review in Yale Climate Connections from 2020 by Peter Gleick in which he discusses the bad science, inappropriate rhetoric, and dangerous misconceptions of one Michael Shellenberger. He makes a very interesting distinction I've never seen before; whereas usually we talk about climate skeptics and science-believers, he draws a curious distinction between a group he calls the Malthusians and another he calls Cornucopians. Malthusians are realistic about our very alarming problems which will affect us all and which we need to enact specific policy for fast while Cornucopians say basically:
> if we just do this, this, and this we will all be okay 🙂
Now, I'm not sure about the name "Malthusians" but I really like the whole Cornucopian label. It describes perfectly what I've been noticing myself for a while now.
Michael Shellenberger is a particularly bad example of this type of person. He believes if we just switch to Nuclear and don't bother so much with renewables (which he calls "unreliable"), then we will all be on the right track to beat climate change. He argues against what he considers """liberal""" climate alarmism and argues that everyday weather patterns are not influenced by climate despite growing literature on the topic. It's no surprise that he's a grifter btw. He's been on the Joe Rogan podcast (a hotbed of mainstream conspiracy theories and misinformation), John Stossell (a well known libertarian climate skeptic), Reason TV (libertarian media), and he's also tried and failed to run for Governor of California. It's actually funny how much he gets owned in this article.
> https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/07/review-bad-science-and-bad-arguments-abound-in-apocalypse-never/
How do we stop people who care about climate change from becoming lured into complacency by Cornucopian grifters like Shellenberger instead of serious climate activists worried about the state of our planet?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
> the state of our planet
how grandiose, since when do you speak for everyone on the planet? i don't concede that i share the planet with you, i never agreed to that. its my planet, you are an unwelcome, uninvited guest. you want to live on mars anyway, you don't care even slightly about my planet, gtfo and take your gaywad internet virtue signaling with you.
Holy shit, I don't even know where to start with you. Please, never reply to another post by me again. Seek help. You might think that you are clever, but you are very seriously deranged.
This is the logical last resort of the climate denial movement after they've lost every scientific debate. It was always going to be about politics and policy in the end, since that's what motivates deniers in the first place. Their arguments just need to be thoroughly and publicly refuted by scientists and economists like any other denier. Don't give them special treatment.
>since that's what motivates deniers in the first place.
I'm mostly motivated by the behaviours of the UN and their genocide plans and how they coopted theories to promote their own agendas while shutting down others
Thanks for proving my point.
I'm not though. I see legitimate grounds for skepticism given the conduct of certain parties. But I have issues with the proposed models behind some of them too. I dislike parties such as Shellenberger too. I've seen enough real projects get terminated through sabotage to give me a lot of pause for thought.
There are many things in this world that powerful interests suppress. There is nothing wrong with questioning the economic and political perspectives of those having their ideas promoted through such blatant manipulation.
>I'm not though
You are though. Instead of giving any scientific argument you jump straight to politics and conspiracy theories. The UN is irrelevant to whether AGW is occurring and how bad it is.
It's relevant to questions of suppression and funding.
Most of the deniers are morons spouting crap about china. I just think there's something deeper but I can't put my finger on it and how it feeds back into the system. I see pollution and environmental degradation, I see climate agendas fronted by financial scams, I see elevated CO2 levels and fluctuating temperature profiles. I see artificial manipulation to later justify regulatory oversight. Something is off, but I don't dismiss the potential for the effect.
I wish I could trust the promoted data but enough of my hunches in the past have proven correct that I don't see this one as any different. I don't want this to be seen as necessarily validating so called denier groups just that something feels very off.
>It's relevant to questions of suppression and funding.
Not really. The UN doesn't fund that much climate research. It compiles research that others have done into reports, and funds actual climate mitigation projects. You have no clue what you're talking about. You just repeat baseless conspiracy theories you've read because they conform to your political ideology.
My position seems to be too nuanced to explain you properly.
More likely too illogical.
Do you trust the words of a conman?
Who are you accusing of being a conman and what's your evidence?
There is no world to begin with. The Cornucopian position is incidentally correct in that the substance of the Phenomenal is just a cretinous vitality.
>Michael Shellenberger
Isn't this the guy with the documentary about hpw shit California has become?
Yeah, he also talks shit about climate change activists as well. Typical milquetoast "moderate" "why I left the left" grifter type.
I only discovered he exists because he did an interview with the british daily telegraph about his california film, my first reaction was "this guy is slimy" as shit.
>Malthusians are realistic about our very alarming problems
will you hope to prove this?
i doubt it.
do you think this is compelling?
Do you think that response is compelling?
>How do we stop people who care about climate change from becoming lured into complacency by Cornucopian grifters like Shellenberger instead of serious climate activists worried about the state of our planet?
To be honest, by getting the Diablo Canyon nuclear station operating licence extended Shellenberger & his org have probably done more to mitigate future Californian CO2 emissions than decades of dropkick moron greens pushing immense investments in solar.
>by getting the Diablo Canyon nuclear station operating licence extended Shellenberger
LOL, just because he took credit for it doesn't mean he had any influence on it.
This guy is so fricking cringe. Happy to see this homosexual get BTFO. lol.
>Malthusians are realistic about our very alarming problems which will affect us all
This got a laugh from me. Your bias is unbelievable.
That said, Schellenberger on the whole is more right than he is wrong. Solar/wind have serious problems with dependable generation. There is no forseeable route to net zero without a huge increase in nuclear power generation.
Please actually read the fricking article linked in the OP. Thanks 🙂