The idea this is regulatory capture seems correct.
1. For all the talk of dangers, there has not been one definitive, well-thought out, peer-reviewed discussions of an A-to-Z way in which this might arise from current technology. Global warming isn't taken terribly seriously from a regulatory standpoint, and it has a defined model. One must naturally ask: how serious do they consider this if they can't show their work? How serious should we consider this "threat" they can't actually explain?
2. Therefore, we must presume it is speculatory.
3. These people are smart, well-funded, and have business interests.
4. At the fork dictated by Hanlon's Razor we are given two possibilities:
A. These highly intelligent people are forming a massive collective and putting their reputations on the line over ungrounded speculation. This implies they don't actually grasp the field they are discussing - even if they work in it, and therefore have made it clear they're not the type anyone should listen too. Therefore we should work to actively disregard them, and their institutions.
B. These highly intelligent people are organizing in a coherent manner to their net benefit. Likely through market capture. Therefore they are still respectable in their fields, but behaving by putting their interests before the public's.
Therefore: it might be contrary to Hanlon's Razor, but I think option B is more sound given the probability of mass hysteria seems so low among this particular population. Generally most here have recognized this some way or another, but I wanted to point out how clearly logical it is that this is clearly grift. In science your reputation has no value if you cannot prove your work, and they've fired off hypothesis without providing proof. That implies this list should be seen as a denouncement of the scientific credibility of everyone on it, which is a shame.
1. For all the talk of dangers, there has not been one definitive, well-thought out, peer-reviewed discussions of an A-to-Z way in which this might arise from current technology. Global warming isn't taken terribly seriously from a regulatory standpoint, and it has a defined model. One must naturally ask: how serious do they consider this if they can't show their work? How serious should we consider this "threat" they can't actually explain?
2. Therefore, we must presume it is speculatory.
3. These people are smart, well-funded, and have business interests.
4. At the fork dictated by Hanlon's Razor we are given two possibilities:
A. These highly intelligent people are forming a massive collective and putting their reputations on the line over ungrounded speculation. This implies they don't actually grasp the field they are discussing - even if they work in it, and therefore have made it clear they're not the type anyone should listen too. Therefore we should work to actively disregard them, and their institutions.
B. These highly intelligent people are organizing in a coherent manner to their net benefit. Likely through market capture. Therefore they are still respectable in their fields, but behaving by putting their interests before the public's.
Therefore: it might be contrary to Hanlon's Razor, but I think option B is more sound given the probability of mass hysteria seems so low among this particular population. Generally most here have recognized this some way or another, but I wanted to point out how clearly logical it is that this is clearly grift. In science your reputation has no value if you cannot prove your work, and they've fired off hypothesis without providing proof. That implies this list should be seen as a denouncement of the scientific credibility of everyone on it, which is a shame.