empiricism

@silence7 @Codilingus

There are various levels of climate optimism. E.g., From most to least optimistic.

1. Being rich & truly believing that climate change is a ridiculous belief & God will make them see the light eventually (i.e., oh happy days & rejoice the cumming of the lord!)

2. Being rich, knowing that climate change needs dealing with, but, the clever tech guys have it sorted.

3. Being rich, knowing that climate change will be a disaster, but, what the hell, right now I am rich.

@GuilhermePelayo @hillsanddales

Let's try to talk to the industry bosses & their political lobbyists as if they were ignorant & badly behaved children.

For example. Primary school level science. "Ok, settle down you naughty kids & listen up. To be serious about tackling #ClimateChange, you need to stop carbon emissions from getting into the atmosphere in the first place.

The biggest problem with carbon offsetting is that it doesn’t really work https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/the-biggest-problem-with-carbon-offsetting-is-that-it-doesnt-really-work/

@Burn_The_Right @silence7

Conservative or progressive is often associated with political party's.

E.g., if the evidence suggests we should take a precautionary approach & not gamble the stability of the planet's climate on an unproven "carbon capture" tech, that would be conservative, or a precautionary approach (prudence).

But, the conservative party's & industries are promoting carbon capture. They're not conservative (cautious), they're venture capitalists (gambling for a profit)

@Polydextrous @RvTV95XBeo

I was going to disagree with you but then I noticed that you put everything in capitals.

If you go to a FRIGGIN supermarket & have two choices, a Hamburger or a plant-based burger, & you choose the Hamburger, no amount of CAPITALS will make that the right choice.

If you choose to drive 5 miles in a big diesel truck to pick up a hamburger, regardless of what BP said, your direct carbon emissions & the indirect methane emisisons are a part of the problem.