[M1ch431]

I just want to say that while we probably do have some fundamental differences of opinions, I am a bit puzzled when you suggest that I am indoctrinated or otherwise brainwashed.

I assure you that, in fact, I am very aware in general of how strong and pervasive the profit motive is, how money drives research, and how sometimes research isn't entirely reproducible or is otherwise flawed from the premise or methodologies used. I am also very aware of how research is weaponized to push an agenda by many different types of actors - who may not be in good faith; agendas that likely won't amount to real change in the grand scheme of things - beyond lining the pockets of the few.

I believe that there are plenty of problems on Earth that I would classify as top priority for everyone in the world to address and for them to actively participate in the solutions. Things are not fine, we fundamentally disagree. And I do think there is enough consensus from all sources, that there are some pretty dire predictions for the world. I believe everybody is entitled to forming their own opinions, and that critical thinking absolutely shouldn't be discouraged. You are not harshly judged by me. I'm sure you could link me many studies where you identify a conflict of interest, or identify bad faith, or point out an agenda that is assuredly not for the greater good, or perhaps just dismiss studies that you would liken to fear porn - or an overreaction. And that's fine, I do have an open mind, a mind which I try to exercise, I may not even need to be convinced or informed. But dismissing all the research highlighting the problems potentially coming ahead is definitely a big claim, and requires extraordinary evidence to convince me or anybody reading the thread.

It is indeed a bit of a fantasy to suggest that we, as a species and global community, could penetrate the barriers that limit our creativity and stifle progress, and initiate in good faith diplomacy with one another, and conceive of working together to plan and manifest a better future without our current trajectory poisoning the well.

Fantasy or not, I'd like to believe that human beings are somewhat capable of the diplomacy, civility, and tolerance displayed in TV shows like Star Trek. We are perhaps currently barbaric, but probably still not too far off from shifting away from those practices if we actively utilize technology and our knowledge and ingenuity to change the world as a whole to one that is truly post-scarcity.

[robomartin]

> I am a bit puzzled when you suggest that I am indoctrinated or otherwise brainwashed.

The language you are using is grafted from every narrative being sold.

Nobody who takes the time (it took me about 8 months) to look-up, understand and critically think about the available data says these things.

It's like talking about anti gravity devices to make hoverboards. Sounds fantastic. Not real.

> But dismissing all the research highlighting the problems potentially coming ahead is definitely a big claim, and requires extraordinary evidence to convince me or anybody reading the thread.

This is precisely where everyone goes with this.

What I said is, to put it simply: We cannot "save the planet".

In quotes because the very phrase is ridiculous.

We are being told that, if we spend billions of dollars on nonsense and destroy entire economies we are going to "address climate change" and in some cases they'll add "within a generation or two".

There are only two ways to sell such nonsense. The first is you do a great job of indoctrinating people. The other is to make sure the masses are not educated enough to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

They are using both.

They have actually sold the masses on this idea that we can affect a planetary scale issue in the span of one or two human lives. In a rational society these people would be laughed off the stage.

Reality? If humanity left the planet tomorrow. In other words, the most extreme form of eliminating all of our carbon contributions. It would take somewhere between 50K and 100K years for a reduction of 100ppm of CO2.

How can I make this assertion?

I am not making it myself. We have reliable data showing this in great detail for the last 800K years.

In other words, we know exactly what the planet does without humans around.

So, if the most extreme form of CO2 emissions reduction --no more humans on the planet-- would require 100K years for a 100ppm reduction, how can anyone claim that we can do that A THOUSAND TIMES FASTER while billions of people and all of our industries, etc. are still around.

This is so ridiculous it isn't even a good joke.