[grive]

> Second, no conspiracy would be needed, just hypocrisy of individuals.

To quote your first sentence:

> It's interesting to me how much people are trained to reflex against this possibility.

Which is definitely conspiratorial. It's not just that they might have incomplete or lacking science training, or are defaulting to incorrect common-sense intuitions, no, they have been trained.

Second, the hypocrisy of people benefiting from the status quo, defending a stupid idea to squeeze a few years of carbon emission, and accusing the other side of being ideologically driven is quite striking.

You insult the other side by summoning the idea that they are simple peoples believing in gods and wood spirits, dismiss their opinion by projecting your own ideologically-driven hypocrisy, engage in conspiratorial-adjacent thinking by considering that their opinion is the result of propaganda.

Note how close this is all to the usual climate skeptics rhetorical toolbox. After having to finally conceded that there is an issue, they are trying to justify their insane beliefs by saying that "people were not nice enough when explaining the problem and agreeing with my politics".

Don't claim to advocate for science-based approach by using such rhetorical devices.

[stereolambda]

I doubt I should really continue discussion on these increasingly personal terms, but you're reading my first sentence in a very uncharitable way. (I mean fine, it was combative.) I could maybe accept your formulation "that they might have incomplete or lacking science training, or are defaulting to incorrect common-sense intuitions", except I'd feel that it would sound (even more?) patronizing, as we are no doubt all trained into some opinions in some way. Just by participating in culture. To be honest, I doubt that many people deeply engage with outright propaganda in any direction, I think bigger factors are inertia and not engaging with world affairs that much.

If I tried to be milder and more specific, I could have said: I'd like people to have circa null prior for any technology (i.e. also not blindly enthusiastic), and what I was seeing was, I think, reacting with disaster movie tropes and vaguely mythological worldview. The rest of your post is unclear on whether you accusing me of stuff and/or people you lump me with because of your discourse analysis. I won't be addressing that anyway.