Comments by "earthstick" (@earthstick) on "The Charles III paradox: Anti-establishment King?" video.

The problem I have with Charles’ argument against science is that he uses the science of climate change as his foundation. If science is not to be trusted then his argument has no basis. Furthermore, the science of climate change is controversial in itself. Alternatively, if climate science is legitimate, and he argues that science is not the solution, then his argument is again inconsistent. It is if he wants to say don’t follow the science unless it is climate science.
43
His argument is absolutely paradoxical.
4
@rumination2399 What makes you think human civilisation is not compatible with sustainable ecology? What makes you think we are less able to live within the parameters of the environment than any other species? Does a plant think about the consequences of consuming carbon dioxide from the air? The vast amount of coal would suggest they do not.
1
@rumination2399 I find it a bit too egotistical to proclaim ourselves stewards of the earth. Really I think it is true that the planet can sustain a certain level of activity by the population, and that the population will rise until it reaches that limit, then it will hover around the limit. And that is why it is too egoistical to think we are stewards, in charge of the planet. It has the final say, not us.
1