| | | You're not arguing, you're moralizing.
Your tactic has always been to smear anyone who doesn't submit to your one true narrative as a “sociopath.” That's not science, it's religious zealotry in a lab coat.
Fortunately your arguments are easy to dismantle with facts, not feelings:
“The climate has a thermostat, and GHGs are that thermostat.”
That metaphor is precisely the problem, Earth is not a household appliance. Using “thermostat” to describe the role of CO2 oversimplifies a system governed by complex, chaotic, and nonlinear interactions across oceans, clouds, solar cycles, aerosols, volcanic activity, land use, and yes, greenhouse gases.
The NASA GISS page says CO2 acts like a thermostat in one sense, but even that analogy admits limits. The real climate system has feedback loops (positive and negative), delays, and thresholds we don’t fully understand. That’s why even IPCC models have wide uncertainty ranges.
And Curry didn’t “go crazy” from the Berkeley Earth study. She left academia because of the increasing politicization and dogmatism of the field, which your response proves. Disagreeing with orthodoxy isn’t insanity, it’s science.
Dr. Freeman Dyson (renowned physicist):
“The models do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They may get some things right, but they're not reliable.”
“Climate is the long-term average of weather, over 30 years.”
Correct, but that’s definition, not argument. It’s not a counterpoint to the claim that climate has become a political weapon. Science as a method is neutral. But climate policy, climate funding, and climate alarmism are political, and increasingly punitive.
If you can’t see how “climate” is being wielded to reshape energy systems, economies, and even speech, you’re either not paying attention, or benefiting from the agenda.
“Most of the world is unable to adapt, so yeah, you are a sociopath.”
Calling people sociopaths for advocating realistic and necessary adaptation strategies is the kind of hysterical absolutism that kills debate. You’re effectively saying: “Because some people can’t adapt, no one should.”
The truth? Adaptation is the only approach that benefits the vulnerable now. Telling Bangladesh to buy Teslas or wait for global emissions treaties to cool the planet is not compassion, it’s delusion. Adaptation is about local solutions, infrastructure, water security, agriculture, and disaster planning. That’s not sociopathy, it’s triage.
Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Consensus:
“Climate change is real and man-made, but our policies should focus on smart solutions, adaptation and innovation, rather than panic.”
You’ve elevated carbon dioxide to Original Sin and labeled anyone who questions the gospel a sociopath. That’s not science. That’s a cult. |
|
