3 ms·

The article demonstrates a specific way that "bad" ideas can become more deeply ingrained. I am mildly agnostic towards the amount of contribution man is makin

The article demonstrates a specific way that "bad" ideas can become more deeply ingrained. I am mildly agnostic towards the amount of contribution man is making towards temperature change, I've read reasonable people with various opinions on it. I consider myself an environmentalist, I think the clean air act was a good thing and I am fine with government regulations around the environment, since it is a commons towards which we have an intergenerational stewardship relationship. However, when I see skepticism towards man-caused climate change lumped in with believing in lizard people, I can feel myself physically becoming more dug in in my skepticism. This is not rational, of course: it's a "yeah, well fuck you" reaction. And perhaps it reflects poorly on me. Certainly it will earn me no karma here, nor among the people I usually associate with. But, nonetheless, it is a phenomenological reality, pushing me more deeply into what the author considers a bad idea. > Once a view is popular with the general public, or just within your own ‘tribe,’ it takes a lot of courage even to question it to yourself Indeed. One wishes this criticism was raised more frequently to self-criticism.

toovs 9y ago
> However, when I see skepticism towards man-caused climate change lumped in with believing in lizard people ... As it should be. It should be viewed as even worse. The lizard conspiracy people aren't destroying our planet.
- Flimm 9y ago
  There's three things wrong with this: - you're failing to heed the warning that demonising your opponents makes them further entrenched in their position. If you're trying to save our planet by persuading climate change skeptics, you should stop doing that. - You're equating the plausability of the lizard conspiracy to the plausability of climate change being man-made. Don't, because they're not equally implausible, and it's counterproductive. - Your argument that climate change skeptics are destroying the planet is only true if climate change is indeed man-made, and therefore has no relevance to the determination of climate change's existence and causes.
  - ythn 9y ago
    > Your argument that climate change skeptics are destroying the planet is only true if climate change is indeed man-made Even if climate change is man made (and I believe it is), the argument is only true if the predicted dire outcomes of climate change in the predicted timescales are also true (this I'm not as convinced of). There are likely currently unknown variables that will retroactively devalue the predictive strength of our models one we observe how the future actually is vs. the predictions. Also, skeptics aren't destroying the planet any more than non-skeptics - everybody still drives cars, eats meat, and uses electricity. It can be argued that skeptics are hindering government policies that could help mitigate negative effects of climate change, but so far the policies I've seen proposed would have a near negligible effect other than making us feel good for doing something.
briantakita 9y ago
> But, nonetheless, it is a phenomenological reality, pushing me more deeply into what the author considers a bad idea. Humans have an awareness of social manipulation being practiced. It helps us to preserve our own independent perspective in spite of coercion from "influencers".
ythn 9y ago
> This is not rational, of course: it's a "yeah, well fuck you" reaction. This is why I question the value of the popular practice of demonizing skeptics. It's one thing to discuss solutions "Hey, I know you are skeptical of the severity of the predicted outcomes of climate change, but I think we can both agree that any kind of pollution is probably bad in the long run. How do you feel about nuclear power?" vs. "You climate denier! Do you also deny the holocaust? Thou fool!"
splintercell 9y ago
> However, when I see skepticism towards man-caused climate change lumped in with believing in lizard people, I can feel myself physically becoming more dug in in my skepticism. There is a benefit of such a thinking btw. It may not be rational based on what you really know, but when someone is attacking you irrationally for 'questioning' something, your response is also to drop the rationality of it and go "Fuck You". I have the same reaction to whenever people started claiming that if you believe that Obama wasn't born in America, then you're a racist, my "Fuck You" reaction is the same, to take a piss in this pissing competition, whereas I couldn't give a rat's ass to where he was born, nor I consider that to be a disqualification of being the President. Regarding Climate Change, I don't believe that the issue of 'Climate Change' is an issue of science. Take for instance this is the first comment on the highly controversial editorial NYT recently published: > Brett Stephens is a smart guy who knows absolutely nothing about the most urgent issue of our time. People are dying now, people are starving now, people are forced to leave their homes and their countries now. Species are dying, forests are disappearing the oceans and coral reefs are being damaged beyond repair. And Greenland and the Antarctica are melting and seas are rising. > Facts, science, not opinions. Mr Stephens should come down from his Ivory Tower at the WSJ and go see the world. If he is one more Republican pawn that has been bought off by the fossil fuel lobby, and Russia, like our Illegitimate President, we don't need him cluttering up The NY Times OpEd page. The guy is claims to be all about science and reason, but is cheering 'emotion'. His 'emotional rhetoric' does not make me wanna embrace 'science, reason and facts', rather to fight his real position: 'Emotional rhetoricism'.

toovs 9y ago

> However, when I see skepticism towards man-caused climate change lumped in with believing in lizard people ... As it should be. It should be viewed as even worse. The lizard conspiracy people aren't destroying our planet.

Flimm 9y ago
There's three things wrong with this: - you're failing to heed the warning that demonising your opponents makes them further entrenched in their position. If you're trying to save our planet by persuading climate change skeptics, you should stop doing that. - You're equating the plausability of the lizard conspiracy to the plausability of climate change being man-made. Don't, because they're not equally implausible, and it's counterproductive. - Your argument that climate change skeptics are destroying the planet is only true if climate change is indeed man-made, and therefore has no relevance to the determination of climate change's existence and causes.
- ythn 9y ago
  > Your argument that climate change skeptics are destroying the planet is only true if climate change is indeed man-made Even if climate change is man made (and I believe it is), the argument is only true if the predicted dire outcomes of climate change in the predicted timescales are also true (this I'm not as convinced of). There are likely currently unknown variables that will retroactively devalue the predictive strength of our models one we observe how the future actually is vs. the predictions. Also, skeptics aren't destroying the planet any more than non-skeptics - everybody still drives cars, eats meat, and uses electricity. It can be argued that skeptics are hindering government policies that could help mitigate negative effects of climate change, but so far the policies I've seen proposed would have a near negligible effect other than making us feel good for doing something.

briantakita 9y ago

> But, nonetheless, it is a phenomenological reality, pushing me more deeply into what the author considers a bad idea. Humans have an awareness of social manipulation being practiced. It helps us to preserve our own independent perspective in spite of coercion from "influencers".

ythn 9y ago

> This is not rational, of course: it's a "yeah, well fuck you" reaction. This is why I question the value of the popular practice of demonizing skeptics. It's one thing to discuss solutions "Hey, I know you are skeptical of the severity of the predicted outcomes of climate change, but I think we can both agree that any kind of pollution is probably bad in the long run. How do you feel about nuclear power?" vs. "You climate denier! Do you also deny the holocaust? Thou fool!"

splintercell 9y ago

> However, when I see skepticism towards man-caused climate change lumped in with believing in lizard people, I can feel myself physically becoming more dug in in my skepticism. There is a benefit of such a thinking btw. It may not be rational based on what you really know, but when someone is attacking you irrationally for 'questioning' something, your response is also to drop the rationality of it and go "Fuck You". I have the same reaction to whenever people started claiming that if you believe that Obama wasn't born in America, then you're a racist, my "Fuck You" reaction is the same, to take a piss in this pissing competition, whereas I couldn't give a rat's ass to where he was born, nor I consider that to be a disqualification of being the President. Regarding Climate Change, I don't believe that the issue of 'Climate Change' is an issue of science. Take for instance this is the first comment on the highly controversial editorial NYT recently published: > Brett Stephens is a smart guy who knows absolutely nothing about the most urgent issue of our time. People are dying now, people are starving now, people are forced to leave their homes and their countries now. Species are dying, forests are disappearing the oceans and coral reefs are being damaged beyond repair. And Greenland and the Antarctica are melting and seas are rising. > Facts, science, not opinions. Mr Stephens should come down from his Ivory Tower at the WSJ and go see the world. If he is one more Republican pawn that has been bought off by the fossil fuel lobby, and Russia, like our Illegitimate President, we don't need him cluttering up The NY Times OpEd page. The guy is claims to be all about science and reason, but is cheering 'emotion'. His 'emotional rhetoric' does not make me wanna embrace 'science, reason and facts', rather to fight his real position: 'Emotional rhetoricism'.