There are two forms of climate science denial. The hard version is direct and in your face, like Donald Trump claiming climate change is a Chinese lie to prevent America from becoming great again. It is easy to spot and as subtle as a crowbar to the face.
The soft version is when liberals like Biden and basically every other western leader talks the people and themselves into believing climate change is a manageable problem that can be fixed with small technocratic measures. They're promising us that the consumerist binge of the middle class can go on indefinitely if we just give tax credits to electric cars and solar panels and makes a YouTube video telling people to put a little carrot in their meatballs.
This soft denial is much more dangerous than the hard version. Biden "believes the science" which makes him sound like he's on the sensible side of the argument, compared to the hard denialists. And in contrast to Trump who made a point of doing nothing he does something which we're told is sufficient. The media has cast climate change as a standard political disagreement with two sides. The hard denialists are portrayed as one side in the conflict while the soft denialists are portrayed as the other. And while the denialists sucks up all the attention, the real climate movement is left out of the argument and treated like unreasonable extremists.
Right. The forum is media hosted, and the viewpoints are only the two espoused by the major political parties; anything else is branded as 'eco terrorism', or 'economically infeasible'.
Heaven help if you think we maybe should take more drastic action on a looming crises than just implementing global cap and trades and setting deadlines that are 20 years off.
There are two forms of climate science denial. The hard version is direct and in your face, like Donald Trump claiming climate change is a Chinese lie to prevent America from becoming great again. It is easy to spot and as subtle as a crowbar to the face.
The soft version is when liberals like Biden and basically every other western leader talks the people and themselves into believing climate change is a manageable problem that can be fixed with small technocratic measures. They're promising us that the consumerist binge of the middle class can go on indefinitely if we just give tax credits to electric cars and solar panels and makes a YouTube video telling people to put a little carrot in their meatballs.
This soft denial is much more dangerous than the hard version. Biden "believes the science" which makes him sound like he's on the sensible side of the argument, compared to the hard denialists. And in contrast to Trump who made a point of doing nothing he does something which we're told is sufficient. The media has cast climate change as a standard political disagreement with two sides. The hard denialists are portrayed as one side in the conflict while the soft denialists are portrayed as the other. And while the denialists sucks up all the attention, the real climate movement is left out of the argument and treated like unreasonable extremists.
so just like everything else in politics, then.
Right. The forum is media hosted, and the viewpoints are only the two espoused by the major political parties; anything else is branded as 'eco terrorism', or 'economically infeasible'.
Heaven help if you think we maybe should take more drastic action on a looming crises than just implementing global cap and trades and setting deadlines that are 20 years off.
deleted by creator