Quote: (12-30-2018 08:16 PM)The Catalyst Wrote:
Eh Climate change science is a weird one. Without being aware of the depths of how fake the fake news media is, it's quite easy for someone to believe the narrative. While to believe the others you have to be progressive. Presumably if you are a conservative/libertarian who isn't aware about the fake news media or climate change in general(plenty common in somewhere like NZ) then you'll believe in climate change without the rest of that. Because of this your certainty with regards to climate change probably should be a bit lower. I'd say 85% or so.
Please don't take offence to this, but that's a bit pedantic.
I agree that Climate Change is the odd man out there. Let's give it a 70% correlation instead of the 95% I stated for the others. The reason being, that sane environmentalism is a universal cause. Nobody wants heavy metals in their drinking water, plastic in the Pacific, or deforestation of our lands. This creates a large group on the right who support environmentalism because they don't realize that the leadership has been co-opted, and are now dedicated to the anti-human agenda.
That said - we're not discussing the average environmentalist, we're talking about a guy who profits substantially off of government funding. While I might give your average environmentalist a 70% score, I'd give this guy a 99% score. This is why I consider going into nuance pedantic.
Again, please don't take offence - I'm just saying that we should call this spade a spade.