> ...A combination of wishful thinking and others agreeing with them creating an echo chamber that reinforces their opinion.
Yes absolutely correct, and theres no better example than this:
" I think global warming is an existential crisis"
Why exactly do you think that? I understand why someone might, given the saturation of that opinion on the left, but its not based in science.
I personally had a conversation with a PhD scientist who told me that she believes experts say that food production will drop if business as usual is the scenario. I asked her where she got that, and she said the IPCC guide.
Naively, I showed her that IPCC says that even the implausible scenarios results only in a reduction in the rate of growthz not an actual decline. I say naively because I assumed she would accept that, but of course she stuck to we're-all-going-to-starve.
If you look at the underlying science - it's brutal. For the 1st world it's a significant expense. For the 2nd world it's a serious problem. For the 3rd world it's going to cause widespread shortages and almost certainly local wars.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Only the wildly implausible scenarios envision widespread shortages, especially in the context of the global population peaking in 70 years and then rapidly declining. Why should we make policy based on ludicrous scenarios? Thats the problem with the Colorado energy policy in a nutshell.
The PUC is unlikely to approve a 'special' rate for data centers without looking at all rate spread/design. Which is also unlikely, perhaps even more so. I personally think there should be no policy to electrify everything until we have an thorough, honest conversation about rate spread and rate design.
> ...A combination of wishful thinking and others agreeing with them creating an echo chamber that reinforces their opinion.
Yes absolutely correct, and theres no better example than this:
" I think global warming is an existential crisis"
Why exactly do you think that? I understand why someone might, given the saturation of that opinion on the left, but its not based in science.
I personally had a conversation with a PhD scientist who told me that she believes experts say that food production will drop if business as usual is the scenario. I asked her where she got that, and she said the IPCC guide.
Naively, I showed her that IPCC says that even the implausible scenarios results only in a reduction in the rate of growthz not an actual decline. I say naively because I assumed she would accept that, but of course she stuck to we're-all-going-to-starve.
Why? Because of the echo chamber, as you said.
If you look at the underlying science - it's brutal. For the 1st world it's a significant expense. For the 2nd world it's a serious problem. For the 3rd world it's going to cause widespread shortages and almost certainly local wars.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Only the wildly implausible scenarios envision widespread shortages, especially in the context of the global population peaking in 70 years and then rapidly declining. Why should we make policy based on ludicrous scenarios? Thats the problem with the Colorado energy policy in a nutshell.
The PUC is unlikely to approve a 'special' rate for data centers without looking at all rate spread/design. Which is also unlikely, perhaps even more so. I personally think there should be no policy to electrify everything until we have an thorough, honest conversation about rate spread and rate design.