Perhaps you missed my point? I’m simply saying that after So many people dying, if the data isn’t perfect it doesn’t really matter. The fact is way too many people died and much of that was due to political bias, ignorance and misinformation.
we other animals say not enough human's died.
The reason being that as soon as you decide that only one side has the “truth“ and that you, or your side is the only one that can be heard you‘ve committed the same sins you accuse others of making. All sides need to have an ability to be heard, wrong or right. We don’t want a society where a small group decides everything for everyone and no one questions anything. We want to be able to question even if wrong and misinformed, the ability to question and disagree should be there. It is less efficient and at times dangerous, but the alternative is much worse.
You make a compelling argument Keith. We are definitely the problem. Perhaps someday us humans will realize that and change our ways, but I doubt it. Too many of us think we have some sort of holy right to do as we please and every other animal on the planet is here for us to do as we please. It’s one of the most repulsive qualities of people who believe... I’ve said enough and I’ll leave it at that.
(Self-)Restraint exemplifies mastery.
I agree that just because everyone has opinions doesn’t mean that these opinions are of equal value. They are not. Opinions of experts on the subject are a lot more valuable and should be followed. This is not what I am saying. I am against silencing critique or not allowing questioning of experts. Dismissing solid information out of dogma is a problem, but if the alternative is to silence the ignorant then I’d rather they kept asking their questions. It is annoying and tiresome, but this is the price we pay for the ability to be able to do this. The alternative is worse, the proof is out there, right now. It is just too easy to go from silencing people from talking about the subjects they are not qualified to talk about to silencing them on other subjects as well. Unfortunately, experts and people in power have a habit of deciding that they know what is best for all and continuing with this line of reasoning even when they cross outside of their areas of expertise.
Free speech only exists between government and the populace, so it is not a free speech argument. We are not allowed to talk about all sorts of things. I am against all false narratives for political reasons or some agenda, but this is the world we live in. Like you, I don’t know what to do about it. It is becoming more and more difficult to figure out which organization or which experts to listen to. Everyone is an expert these days just because they read something on the web somewhere.
We generally don’t allow criminals to participate in any discussions legislation or otherwise.
There's two problems with this.
Part of the reason the whole climate change debate gets muddied (deliberately) is that many parties simply have no interest in adressing this problem. For fossile fuel energy companies it's basically a giant threat to their bottom line. Similarly with countries relying heavily on on fossil fuel exports for their national income; for them 'reducing CO2' is basically a financial death sentence.
