I mean, if you're uncomfortable having your ideas challenged, that's on you, not me. Science is not religion. The very nature of science is to question. So if I read 100 papers over the last 50 years, each written by preeminent scientists, however none of those predictions in those papers have come true; whose fault is it that I question what amounts to the same old tired predictions? Mine? ...for not 'believing' in the science, or theirs; the latter of which present predictions that never seem rooted in reality?
You missed the point entirely. If 100 papers over 70 years say the end of the world is nigh, but the world doesn't end; who is wrong? me or the papers?
It's perfectly fine to be a weird dude who advocates that we need exponential growth of humans and that all climate scientists are chicken little. It makes life more interesting and magical to see people trying to logically defend getting us closer to ending modern civilization because it lets me know people are truly free to be whatever they want
