> Climate change is another one. Anyone who wants to debate the topic is instantly cancelled as a denialist.
This is nothing to do with cancel culture or social media. It’s because big energy companies paid people to deny climate change. Unsurprisingly this makes people tetchy around those with let’s say heterodox views.
The well has been poisoned for fair criticism and it was not poisoned by environmentalists.
While I believe climate change is a real thing. When someone questions why data is excluded from models it’s automatically flagged as denial. You can argue that there’s people paid to deny but it doesn’t change the fact anyone who even questions it is cancelled. Look at the “97% of scientists” report that came out and half the scientists were either not even in that subject or said their opinions were taken out of context. Yet everyone cites that as absolute fact and questioning it gets you blasted.
That’s cancel culture no matter how you try to spin it.
You clearly don't remember the 'smoking causes cancer' debate - yes, there was a debate and it was hotly contested, and it was very emotionally charged. It played out similarly to the topic of climate change has so far. There has never been an era of reasonable public discussion and consensus building.
Sure but I would like to think the debates occurred and happened people argued back and forth and ultimately convinced the other side.
But what we have now is basically “you are wrong you have no say”
When you shut people out like that and they feel like they are not being heard you end up more divided and against each other. Which is basically what’s happening now in many topics.
Perhaps. I see what you are getting at. I’d suggest that there’s been an erosion of intelligent debate in general and what we see is just what’s left behind rather than something new. Complexity is not tolerated any more.
Maybe they did or didn't - but regardless of what those companies might have once done, they are now all owning big solar and wind businesses too.
If you look at the people asking tough questions about climatology, none of them have any links with energy firms. The median climate change skeptic is a retired engineer of some kind, or sometimes a retired climatologist. They don't have any links and they attack climate science because they think science should be accurate and disagree that big changes should be made on the back of bad science, but disagree that this particular field is accurate. That's it, that's their whole motivation.
Doesn't matter. Look at the post you're replying to. It's greyed out. You aren't allowed to even observe that people get cancelled for arguing about climate change - that's how far it's gone.
This is nothing to do with cancel culture or social media. It’s because big energy companies paid people to deny climate change. Unsurprisingly this makes people tetchy around those with let’s say heterodox views.
The well has been poisoned for fair criticism and it was not poisoned by environmentalists.