[ExI] Existential hysteria
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Wed Jul 23 06:09:43 UTC 2014
> > El 2014-05-31 01:05, Anders Sandberg escribi?:
> > [...]
> >> This would have been amusing, except I actually encounter people who get
> >> terribly upset when I mention climate change is unlikely to be an
> >> existential risk. Just check out some of the reactions in the comments:
### A couple of months ago SciAm published an article by Michael Mann, of
the hockey-stick fame, one of the central players in the global warming
pseudoscience industry. The article was a propaganda screed trying to
weasel out of admitting that everything that Mann and his ilk claimed to
know about climate isn't so, now that we have 20 years of a stark
discrepancy between their crazy predictions and the boringly normal reality.
This month SciAm published a letter from a reader who more or less berated
Mann for not being sufficiently scary in his sky-is-falling predictions.
This implies that the journos at SciAm think that the climate hysteric in
chief is not hysterical enough.
Can you imagine that? The professional crooks who cooked up the global
warming story in the first place are now getting yelled at by journalists
who popularized the hoax?
The public loves a good existential scare story and they won't let anybody
pry it out of their crania, come hell or nice weather.
This makes me wonder, what *is* a good scare story? Why is the climate
change story still so popular in some circles?
BTW, I don't subscribe to SciAm, I just occasionally buy copies to read on
the plane. Just so nobody thinks I am into low-brow literature.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat