b34k3r on Nostr: Thanks. This is helpful. I don’t get to chat to folks with your side of the ...

Thanks. This is helpful. I don’t get to chat to folks with your side of the argument much- which I recognise is part of the problem. Maybe nostr is better than Twitter echo chamber? Tbc I agree with you that climate “catastrophe” is overstated and govs using it as a power grab BUT equally I find it hard to put my risk estimate so low. If you ignore the doom sayers who are a small (but loud minority) there is a body of evidence that makes me give some weight to the risk. I find the scientific community to be the most dissident and sceptical and overly righteous folks out there. If the evidence is poor they’d be all over it. Proving things wrong - that’s kinda the method. What’s hard is that it’s complex. I know my field but wouldn’t comment or peer review outside that so that leaves us to weight how much I “trust” that group. That leaves the probability that 1) everyone is an idiot (possible but I would weight that around <1% as they do get other stuff right sometimes and the models they use do work in other fields very well) 2) They are all colluding (again possible but knowing scientists I would put that at <0.01%) 3) They are looking at the wrong data (this is related to point 1 but also includes the smart ones just biased / blinkered - maybe ~10%) 4) they are mostly right but it’s not as bad (maybe ~50%) 5) they are bang on or under (maybe 50%).

Have I missed anything or made any incorrect assumptions? What’s your take on the weightings? (They don’t need to add up to 100 as they are relative).