RE: Topkek of the day 2019-09-24: Grumpy Greta Thunberg at the UNGA
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Really appreciate your courage to speak your mind about this topic, especially when you know what kind of sanctions and punishment you will face.
The world (and Steemit) needs more people like you, who will fight this insane attempt of ideological indoctrination and heretics hunt, with heretics being anyone who even dares to question the "highest moral convictions and goals" of such ideological movements.
I don't see how is this different from religious indoctrination, since both are based purely on faith and speculations, presenting them as undeniable scientific truths.
The real danger in this particular movement is that it takes a real, scientifically proven truth (climate change), and manipulates scientific facts, magnifying the real issue by the factor of 1000. Add fear-mongering and psychological manipulation to that (anyone who disagrees or even dares to question the established dogma is instantly declared as a "crazy climate change denier", devaluated and punished), and you get a perfect recipe for success of an ideology.
Worked so many times throughout the history of mankind, it will work again if we don't stand against it and speak our minds whenever we can.
Please keep doing this, there are people who support you!
Upvoted and resteemed for visibility!!!
I disagree with you. Of course, the movement exxagerates by taking the worst case szenario as granted. BUT that does not mean that this worst case szenario is not possible.
As extinction of the human kind is a possibility, we should apply the precautionary principle, and this means drastically limiting CO2 emissions.
And even if you disagree with that, also the most propable developments are bad enough. These are not lies, these are science. We have to do more, or we will pay for it and the price will be far higher than the costs of precautious actions now.
So while I appreciate your dedication to science, you're siding with the wrong people (science deniers) here. Weird.
As a toxicologist, you should know that extrapolation - not good, and should be avoided
You should also know that models based on a simple linear/ exponential curve are useful as a substitution for a toilet paper
You should also know that if your raw data are showing values between 0,2 and 0,85 (UN report, page 50 something, find it yourself, I hope you are able to do that) are as useful as recycled kitty litter
You should also be able to distinguish between the confidence interval and probability if you are at least literate in math.
However, as I see that you are not, no wonder your research papers can't get more than 10 citations.
Also, no wonder, that you surrounded yourselves (together with other steemSTEM morons) with a Nigerian royal family, as college dropouts are creme de la creme and honorable members.
Ah, the good old argument ad hominem. The method of destroying debate by throwing smoke-balls of needless insults to spur emotions, commonly used by those why instinctively fear they stand at the weaker side of an argument.
I will not fall into that trap and answer with hot-headed anger. You see, I am not you. ;-)
Instead, I will answer in time, with some research done and a full post. May I remind you saying the following about me?
It was obviously only half the truth. That stupid anti-vaxxer got me fuming, and that is why I invested time and energy to counter him. I hope you’ll make a more worthy opponent. Stay tuned.
As I already stated in my comment, manipulation of scientific facts, fear-mongering and psychological manipulation work like charm in most people, except for a small minority, including myself ;)
Unlike most of the people, defending myself against ridiculous tagging is the last thing I will spend my time and energy on.
As you decided to put me in the nonexistent or, in the worst case scenario - permille fraction of the developed countries population who really denies scientific facts, I won't bother placing firm arguments for you, since, if you really wanted (especially since you're a scientist yourself), you would use your head and would found them on your own.
Instead, I will make a useless conclusion about you, as you made one for me, since I guess that's the only way a "dialog" with ideologically possessed people is possible:
I think it's really weird AND sad that a PhD scientist and experienced toxicologist doesn't question allegedly scientific data served for him in the mainstream media, especially when it comes to prediction models based on extrapolation.
Moreover, he argues that the whole economic systems should be changed from the ground up (although developed countries are constantly decreasing CO2 emissions for the past several decades by constant improvement of technology, but I guess that's not enough for you Armageddon people), because there's a possibility (again, predicted by a very vague, ambiguous "model") that climate will backlash at us.
Shameful demonstration of serious lack of mathematical knowledge.
Dear @scienceangel, I think you got me wrong there, which has then caused this emotional backlash of ad hominem “argumentation”. For the record: I did not say that you were denying scientific facts (I think you would not do that, at least not consciously), I said that you are siding with those that are denying scientific facts, which is an important difference.
So let me start by apologizing for expressing myself in a way that could be misunderstood. I hope we can keep emotions out of this and get back to a more serious way of fact-based discussion.
Having said this, I stand by my opinion that you are wrong. Sadly, the arguments I will bring on require some research and a full post. You can expect to see it by one week or so. And I hope you are as open-minded as a researcher should be, instead of clinging to your ideology (I know that you will bristle now and say that you follow none.^^ But in my experience, everyone has his own mindset and ideals, i.e. “ideology”).
You will of course have the full right of counter-argumentation, and I will read it with care, as long as it is fact-based and follows the basic rules of logic and science. I’m living up to my credo:
I had a lot of backlash because of this: insults, downvotes, lost witness votes, unfollows, even a whale decided to vote his arch enemy just to kick me out of the top 20! It's a testament to their indoctrination by this new religion.
I can imagine, unfortunately, similar things happen to the people outside of blockchain, they're even threaten with job loss, if they dare to question this and similar ideologies.
And yes, the fact that you're punished only because you spoke your mind about certain topic, is a firm sign of an ideology which doesn't put up with the alternative opinions, or even facts.
Hopefully we won't have to address one another as "comrade" soon ;)
P.S. If you haven't read/watched Orwell's 1984, maybe you'd be interested to do so ;)
Well you still have my MV for what it is worth. You contribute currently and in the past a great deal more to STEEM than just being a witness.That is good enough for me. Hell, even @rt-international (them Russkie funded alt-news source) made a post here on STEEM about this topic. It was not even a video! It was titled: Greta Thunberg wants you afraid, and big business will make a killing off it