Found in 5 comments on Hacker News
> You're quoting the outputs of a propaganda industry, not the outputs of credible independent research.

One man's propaganda is another man's truth, and vice versa. Do you really think the EPI is credible?

> These are the orgs who persistently try to sell trickle-down economics

That's ironic, given that the phrase "trickle-down" was invented by leftists as a marketing tactic:

> low regulation

Well, we can agree on that one at least.

> and other discredited, disastrous, and irrational neoliberal policy argument

Never mind. I guess we have nothing to agree on.

> Many are also enthusiastic climate change denialists.

You're clearly influenced by the outputs of a propaganda industry, not the outputs of credible independent research. See what I did there? I'll even one-up you with some links:

mikepurvis · 2022-05-06 · Original thread
Michael Shellenberger makes a similar case [1] for many uses of plastic, too— for example, items like hair combs and eyeglass frames used to be made out of tortoise shell, and like whales, the tortoises were under major threat until plastic replaced all of that and they went back to being all but ignored by humanity.

So yes, there is a ton of unacceptable plastic waste out there, but the net effect (he argues, anyway) is still overwhelmingly positive for the environment, particularly if we can focus eco efforts on ensuring that plastic ends up safely land-filled rather than being overly consumed with reducing the upfront production of it.

And one of the nice things about this approach is that it's not an uphill battle the way guilting people about their lifestyle choices is— you can work with NGOs to lift people around the world out of poverty, and a natural part of them becoming richer will be having the mental bandwidth to look around and demand things like a safe, well-organized waste processing pipeline.


missinfo · 2021-11-04 · Original thread
To balance that out with some constructive environmentalism, try this book next;

nwienert · 2020-07-23 · Original thread
Again, I'm making the claim that it's been exaggerated/politicized (to what degree is hard to tell, due to so many bad incentives). I can absolutely cite many cases of missed models, corruption[0] (btw if you disagree on this one, there are many more cases like this) and fear-mongering going from the IPCC to politicians to university research that's all been shown to be anywhere from misleading to outright fudge - but - it's not some single thing. So your desire for "one piece of evidence" is not the right way to discuss this. A case has to be made.

If you want a case, here's one of the books I mentioned [1]. It's not entirely perfect, but an example of how you can absolutely make a very valid, science-based attempt at a world-view that refutes many of the central tenets of modern climate change ideology.

Don't confuse me: carbon emissions are an important problem, one we need to solve. But you have decades of people like Gore to AOC to celebrities to even legit scientists, all on the left, who make claims like "we're X years from Y major catastrophe", and they end up wrong. Then you have corruption scandals, inaccurate models and stories of suppression of non-narrative-fitting data, and the democrats beating it over everyones heads constantly.

All I'm saying is this: it's very understandable that the Average Josephine on the right is skeptical. Any claim that says "the righties are dumb / purposefully ignorant" is missing an important piece of socio-cultural dynamics and rational game theory - having a distrust of an institution thats been intensely politicized is... fairly rational.



Fresh book recommendations delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday.