2026-10-28
It turns out that Climate Science, in addition to being the most complex science not yet anywhere near being fully understood by man, gives rise to "carbon footprints" that in the absence of drastic over-simplification cannot be satisfactorily calculated due to economics being the dismal science of mass interactions between vast numbers of people all doing their own thing. It isn't actually computable because (a) the dataset would be vast and (b) there aren't the facilities to collect it all, even if the wondrous new Ai data centres could actually cope with the volumes.
Of course the implacable socialists would argue that that's a good reason to force everybody into the same identikit mould so that their behaviours can be forced down a manageable number of approved channels, but even the excesses of attempts from the Soviet Union to modern China have fallen foul of the laws of unintended consequences, which makes it very difficult to know let alone measure what is actually going on across the population. They don't even know within decent limits how big the population is for Heaven's sake.
But I digress. The problem can it appears be scoped into three parts (scope 1, scope 2, scope 3). For those wondering how this helps in the computation of one's individual "carbon footprint":
"‘ 'What’s scope 3?’ It turns out to be the carbon emissions you don’t emit but get blamed for anyway"
And yes, your 'scope 3' and indeed 'scope 2' is certainly somebody else's 'scope 1' so are not these eminent climate scientists guilty of the elementary mistake of double-counting? Or is it simply about blaming individuals for the climate sins of Big Corporate?
It does make you wonder whether "Climate Change" could possibly be a bigger problem that its protagonists.
Read on, if you have a mind to.
