Registered On: September 7, 2015
I agree with pretty much everything you say, NI.
There are issues with how we adapt to a changing climate and uncomfortable questions need to be asked as to how we find alternatives to reliance on fossil fuels and other CO2 sources without making it unfair and hard for the poor.
These are all worthy of debate. However, Bucks combines it with his denial, so any attempt to acknowledge anthropogenic climate change has you lumped in with a group who leads to the suffering of the poor. It should be possible to acknowledge climate change and push for alternatives, while concerning yourself over how this impacts others. However, with Bucks you will always be gaslit and straw manned into a position where it’s either pretend climate change isn’t happening to any great extent (as evident by his dismissal of things like sea level rise, despite allegedly not being a denier) or force the poor into greater poverty with high energy prices. It’s therefore impossible to debate with him, because there can be no attempt at nuance when everyone who disagrees is some out of touch liberal elitist who cannot possibly acknowledge challenges with things like net zero carbon.
All the scientists who disagree are money grabbers after government research funds, which are being budgeted by the government to make the economy more challenging with regards to having to deal with climate change, for some reason. All scientists who disagree are the proper scientists and any questions over some of their funding can be dismissed, because money has to come from somewhere and it doesn’t mean bias.
I don’t see what’s of value debating on this with him, to be honest.