It makes sense.
One group goes with what the state tells them (climate change is man made and we need trillions of your money to fight it, Bitcoin is bad)
And one group goes against what the state says (climate change is not man made and it is not an existential threat, Bitcoin is good)
What if climate change is man made and an existential threat, but cannot be solved by centralized institutions who created the problem in the first place.
Is it so hard to accept that there is truth on both sides?
It's not hard to accept - I was a climate hysteric from third grade. They had me do special projects including writing a book on how devastating global warming would be. I've posted about it on here before.
It was hard for me to see that I had been indoctrinated in an ideology which was not based in reality and intentionally created fear in order to gain more power and influence. I'm glad that's now where I am at.
I reccomend you read fossil future. "Science" needs to be paired with scrutiny and logic, and the book does a good job of that.
Here is an interview I did when I was 9. This is what they were teaching us about global warming 14 years ago.
