I think a large part of the equation often gets completely ignored when it comes to post-truth. The "right" is always demonized as idiots and the nuance of their arguments is instantly considered invalid.
For example, I question the models and the solutions of the "climate changers". Even the words "climate change"... is some kind of Orwellian newspeak. Of course the climate changes, constantly... yet these words evoke panic and a need to "do something about it".
It's not simply "free marketeers want unconstrained markets so screw the alarmists".
I think there are very valid skepticisms about the climate computer models because even tiny changes in the initial conditions can produce wildly different results.
The fudging of the data is also very worrisome, but the most alarming thing is the gov wants to tax A BASIC ELEMENT. That is insane brother and should terrify people haha, straight out of a dystopian sci fi book, but it is ok because they have us fooled that this is a "moral" endevour.
If the solution is more government power, I think the right and the left should be very worried. They don't tell us to plant more trees and the corporations and media seduce us with "green" products.
Because I have these opinions, I am considered anti-science, yet it is science that asks for the most skepticism and most of the claims of the 97% of scientists (more orwellian language as an appeal to authority) can be falsified. Yet to even question the 97% instantly puts you in the crazy box.
Thanks for the post :)
Thank you for such an elaborate and eloquent response @soundwavesphoton :-)
A lot of what I could say here has already been said in my response to @dashr, so please read that if you can.
Also I agree with most of the reservations about the AGW propaganda; heck, the mere fact that there is so much hype around it in the mainstream media should make us suspicious abut the truth of it. That doesn't take away though that the so called "climate-deniers" (talk about Orwellian speak indeed) are economically motivated in their narrative. As almost everything is because we made money God. So measures to reduce waste and CO2 emissions are not taken because they hurt the economy. And when we do take measures, we do so within the parameters set by said economy and we end up with something horrible as taxation of an element, like you rightly mentioned. Take this bullshit one step further and we'll be buying breathable air in cans. Taxing polluted air is the same as charging money for unpolluted air. And it doesn't work. And it will hurt the poor most.
Carbon tax is one of those measures by which we can plainly see the shadowboxing that's going on between left and right wing politics. This leftist proposal is a fake solution that will hurt average working people the most. Factories however have been given the opportunity to trade their allotted emission-rights among themselves. So companies that can easily reach a set goal for the emissions, and therefore have a lot of their emission points left, can sell these leftover rights to companies that have a hard time reaching their emission goals. This simply saves those companies money compared to the costs they would have had to pay if they truly had to make the investments to reach a lower emission rate. Again: we pay the prise where the plutocrats escape yet again...
This fear of government I've never understood. Look at it like this: if you fear the government you just admit to the failing of the democracy. And this is true: the democracy has failed. Miserably. The answer however is not fear of government but eliminating that which makes the democracy fail. If your government was a true government by and for the people you wouldn't fear them. You'd love them. We don't fear, but even hate the government in its current form because they're the ruling puppets of a plutocracy; a government by the capitalists for the capitalists. You should get angry about the government whether they're right wing or left wing; they're not working for you. But don't fear government in general; instead work to make a better democracy and eliminate (the power of) money.
Science is skepticism. Or skepticism is a fundamental element of science. To be skeptic about science is to be skeptic about skepticism (wow... try repeating that in fast succession a couple times...) :-) But... it is healthy to be skeptic about scientists; they're as human as you and I and therefore often fall in the same traps as we mere weed-smokers do (yes, there are alternative ways to expand the mind... ;-)). And again the economy, and therefore money and rich people, plays a crucial role here: is someone paid money to say one thing or another? And by whom? Does the doctor prescribe me medicine because I need it, or are there financial motivations for him or her to do so? Why does advertising medicine even exist?
Thanks brother, and please stay skeptic :-)