12 ms·

I'm flattened by the degree to which people assume that, because I'm willing to go along with the guess that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, I must a

by Eliezer 17y ago

I'm flattened by the degree to which people assume that, because I'm willing to go along with the guess that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, I must also be in favor of loony policy proposals. Was saying that I was against ethanol-from-corn, and for building 10,000 LFTR nuclear power plants, not enough of a clue? Was saying that I don't worry about AGW in the real world because we have much worse problems not enough of a clue? Is all that just flatly overridden by my being willing to provisionally believe what mainstream climate scientists say? It's a question of simple fact, not values! I should be able to believe something about how the Earth's atmosphere works without automatically ending up lumped in some particular political cluster! I'd understand if you assumed that by default, but I went out of my way to provide you with specific evidence to contradict that assumption! Geepers.

lionhearted 17y ago
It comes with the territory - for instance, Subset of AGW people overlaps quite heavily with subset of environmentalists. Subset of AGW people overlaps quite heavily with subset of "catastrophe is coming" people. Subset of AGW people overlaps quite heavily with subset of "regulation is the answer people". Subset of AGW people DOES NOT overlap much with pro-thorium/pro-fusion people. It'd be like if I made the argument that I'm against income inequality, that we need a "fair distribution", and things like that for an article - but wrote a couple sentences that I'm not in favor of taxation/redistribution. I'd be one of the few alive that thought that way. "AGW is happening, but isn't a big deal" is a rare position. "AGW is happening, but we've got bigger fish to fry" is a very rare position. "AGW is happening, and so I'm for nuclear" is also relatively rare. For the record, I believe some global warming is happening, much of it isn't human created, some of it is, it won't be a catastrophe, bureaucratic regulations would be poorly implemented and accomplish very little, there's more bang for your buck in working on local ecosystems, and better nuclear power/batteries does to energy what modern farming and biochemistry did for food while largely ending problems of air pollution. Finally, I think people in the future laugh at what a panic those silly folk back in the early 2000's were thinking. So yes, when you go heavily against the grain, you've got to keep disclaiming every paragraph or people will just assume you're for the things that everyone else with those positions is for. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and all of that. If you use terminology and speak of things in a certain way that almost everyone else who speaks that way is in favor of certain kinds of solutions, people will drift into thinking you're in favor of them. That said, enjoyed this article quite a bit besides that.
- Locke1689 17y ago
  Subset of AGW people overlaps quite heavily with subset of environmentalists. Subset of AGW people overlaps quite heavily with subset of "catastrophe is coming" people. Subset of AGW people overlaps quite heavily with subset of "regulation is the answer people". Subset of AGW people DOES NOT overlap much with pro-thorium/pro-fusion people. You're just making that up... Personally I think a huge amount of people who believe that AGW is happening are huge proponents of nuclear fusion. In fact, I think that almost everyone is pro-nuclear fusion if it is scientifically possible. As far as fission goes, a large part of the Obama administration favors expanding nuclear fission and they also take an AGW position.
lutorm 17y ago
Thank you for arguing the issue much better than I could! I'm open to discussions about what to do about AGW (absent loony policy proposals like fusion or "clean coal"), but I don't understand those who say the state of the science justifies saying we just don't have to worry about it.

by Eliezer 17y ago

lionhearted 17y ago

It comes with the territory - for instance, Subset of AGW people overlaps quite heavily with subset of environmentalists. Subset of AGW people overlaps quite heavily with subset of "catastrophe is coming" people. Subset of AGW people overlaps quite heavily with subset of "regulation is the answer people". Subset of AGW people DOES NOT overlap much with pro-thorium/pro-fusion people. It'd be like if I made the argument that I'm against income inequality, that we need a "fair distribution", and things like that for an article - but wrote a couple sentences that I'm not in favor of taxation/redistribution. I'd be one of the few alive that thought that way. "AGW is happening, but isn't a big deal" is a rare position. "AGW is happening, but we've got bigger fish to fry" is a very rare position. "AGW is happening, and so I'm for nuclear" is also relatively rare. For the record, I believe some global warming is happening, much of it isn't human created, some of it is, it won't be a catastrophe, bureaucratic regulations would be poorly implemented and accomplish very little, there's more bang for your buck in working on local ecosystems, and better nuclear power/batteries does to energy what modern farming and biochemistry did for food while largely ending problems of air pollution. Finally, I think people in the future laugh at what a panic those silly folk back in the early 2000's were thinking. So yes, when you go heavily against the grain, you've got to keep disclaiming every paragraph or people will just assume you're for the things that everyone else with those positions is for. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and all of that. If you use terminology and speak of things in a certain way that almost everyone else who speaks that way is in favor of certain kinds of solutions, people will drift into thinking you're in favor of them. That said, enjoyed this article quite a bit besides that.

Locke1689 17y ago
Subset of AGW people overlaps quite heavily with subset of environmentalists. Subset of AGW people overlaps quite heavily with subset of "catastrophe is coming" people. Subset of AGW people overlaps quite heavily with subset of "regulation is the answer people". Subset of AGW people DOES NOT overlap much with pro-thorium/pro-fusion people. You're just making that up... Personally I think a huge amount of people who believe that AGW is happening are huge proponents of nuclear fusion. In fact, I think that almost everyone is pro-nuclear fusion if it is scientifically possible. As far as fission goes, a large part of the Obama administration favors expanding nuclear fission and they also take an AGW position.

lutorm 17y ago

Thank you for arguing the issue much better than I could! I'm open to discussions about what to do about AGW (absent loony policy proposals like fusion or "clean coal"), but I don't understand those who say the state of the science justifies saying we just don't have to worry about it.