An interesting thing about science is that there can be neither pessimism nor optimism, but the most accurate possible result.
But with regard to the greenhouse effect, if you choose a position, the optimistic position. Well, but in science you cannot have optimism. The primary concept in science when data is not exact, as no data in reality is exact. So the important thing is the probabilistic.
So, the most likely, should therefore be the most accepted. But in relation to the destruction of nature, this is not how it is done.
For years, a forecast of devastation has been defined and the devastation is always greater. In this way, scientific ways are vitiated. When scientific data is unbiased, it tends to give larger and smaller values, and its average yields the best answer. But when he's addicted, the average is addicted.
This is because people and the economic system force research systems to generate this addiction.
It is not because a scientific data is against the will of the majority, it is a sign that the scientist is pessimistic. Pessimism is usually information contrary to the will of another.
So, no matter what each person wants, reality doesn't care what people want. In fact reality is impersonal, your answers are governed by fixed laws. Destroying nature generates the answer we are getting today.
Heat that kills people, droughts that generate lack of energy, lack of food and many other things. But that's not because nature is angry, and it's taking revenge. Natural catastrophes occur as reactions to human action.
It's no use being optimistic, you have to be realistic. The culture that the truth is what we decide is a big lie. For the natural catastrophes caused by man's action are there to tell man that his truth against nature is a mere lie.
