Science opponents believe their knowledge ranks among the highest, but it is actually among the lowest

[Unum]

https://www.psypost.org/2022/08/science-opponents-believe-their-knowledge-ranks-among-the-highest-but-it-is-actually-among-the-lowest-63762

People with the greatest opposition to the scientific consensus tend to have
the lowest levels of objective science knowledge but the highest levels of
self-rated knowledge, according to new research published in Science Advances.
The findings are in line with the Dunning-Kruger effect, a well-documented
phenomenon in which people who are lacking in skills or knowledge tend to
overestimate their abilities.

“Given that the most extreme opponents of the scientific consensus tend to be
those who are most overconfident in their knowledge, fact-based educational
interventions are less likely to be effective for this audience,” Light and
his colleagues wrote. “For instance, The Ad Council conducted one of the
largest public education campaigns in history in an effort to convince people
to get the COVID-19 vaccine. If individuals who hold strong antivaccine
beliefs already think that they know all there is to know about vaccination
and COVID-19, then the campaign is unlikely to persuade them.”

[JTEM is Remarkably Flexible]

Unum wrote:

> People with the greatest opposition to the scientific consensus
> tend to have the lowest levels of objective science knowledge

What this is telling you, the message here is that if you obey the
media -- and it's the media, not "Science" that you're listening to
-- then you are superior.

That's the message.

"I am superior to others because I believe & obey the media without
question."

Well let's pretend that there really is a "Scientific Consensus."

So what? It changes nothing.

There is honestly no point in us closing coal plants when China
keeps building more & more others. So if your imaginary
consensus were real, if Gwobull Warbling were real, it couldn't
change anything. Closing coal plants, hurting our economy,
making energy more expensive HERE changes nothing.

No, all our efforts would have to be in PREPARATION.

Avoidance is impossible, if your precious CO2 narrative is true.

The evil film in control of the northeast, places like Boston and
New York, or banning new NG hookups and it can't change a
goddamn thing. Even if there really were a consensus, even if
we assume the narrative is 100% true, it can't and won't change
anything. Because PRODUCTION isn't altered one iota. All they
are doing is protecting EXPORTS. And as "Global" means that
it doesn't matter if it's burned in Boston, New York or Munich,
there is no change. Except that the lack of availability of NG
means we need more oil, we need more coal, we need more
nuclear energy...

: Scientists generally regard the later part of the 19th century as
: the point at which human activity started influencing the
: climate. But the new study brings that date forward to the 1830s.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-clarify-starting-point-for-human-caused-climate-change/

There. This proves it: If AGW is true, if there's really a consensus
than it's pointless to even attempt to stop it. We must invest
everything into preparation. Preparation is our only option, if it's
true. Anything other than preparation is murder, if it's actually
science. Because...

Google the earth's population in 1830:

1 billion.

Global population today:

7.97 billion.

Difference of:

6.97 billion.

Google how much CO2 a single human exhales while breathing:

2.3 pounds per day.

So, multiple 6.97 billion by 2.3 pound by 365 days per year:

2,925,657,500 tons of CO2.

That's how much MORE CO2 humans are producing just from
exhaling while breathing.

This is roughly 3x whatever industry/households were emitting
from burning fuels in 1830.

BUT IT'S ALL FAKE!

1830 is when something called "The Dalton Minimum" ended:

It was a period of very low solar activity, sunspots, resulting in
a colder earth. And if there is an actual "Scientific Consensus,"
it's that when a cold period ends it is by definition a warmer
period.

But even pretending that a period of reduced solar activity had
come to an end, warming the earth, could not possibly resulted
in the earth getting warmer, even pretending that there is any
"Science" claiming that human activity did all this, it's still
pointless. Because unless you slaughter off the majority of
mankind then we're going to produce roughly 3x the CO2 they
were emitting just from our breathing.

Understand?

If humans burning fuel honestly did kick start global warming
back then, it's impossible to stop because there's so many more
of us now that we're warming the plant 3x as much just from
breathing.

We can eliminate 100% of all our fossil fuel use and it can't
matter. Because, without slaughtering BILLIONS of lives,
without conducting genocide on a scale that dwarfs all the
other genocides combined, we can't stop your precious global
warming. We can only preparer for it.

And we're not preparing

We're hurting people. We are robbing from the people with the
smallest "CO2 Footprints." We are increasing poverty. But we
are not and can not lower CO2 levels below what the global
warming narrative says is needed.

It's not science, it's a hoax.

You are evil. Well, assuming you're even a human being and not
a posting bot. The world will be a better place when you die.

You are evil. Nothing of value comes from evil.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/693214398650744832