6 ms·

I just came back from 7 months on one of the U.S. research stations, doing network engineering and glacier search and rescue. It was pretty interesting to see h

I just came back from 7 months on one of the U.S. research stations, doing network engineering and glacier search and rescue. It was pretty interesting to see how fast the glacier face the station was near was retreating each year. edit: did an AMA while there that hit the reddit front page https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5656e1/iama_i_dont_have_a_lot_of_time_but_network/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5656e1/iama_i_dont_ha...

chronic7ui 9y ago
Is Antarctica melting? Yes. Is it bad? Yes. Are humans accelerating it? Yes. Is it bad for my kids and future generations? Yes. Does that mean I'm going to switch to an EV, start taking public transportation in Mountain View, or stop using disposable bags at While Foods? No. Scientists have a long way to convince the billions of people on Earth like me before anyone is going to meaningfully reduce climate change.
- mc32 9y ago
  I'm not sure why people are downvoting the above comment. Many people think the same way and we have a long way to convince people that their attitudes and behavior need to be modified --both here _and_ in the developing world. It's likely more acute in the developing world since their governments have fewer resources to dedicate to the issue so the populous is on their own to modify behavior and attitudes. Ignoring this issue (that this kind of attitude exists) just compounds the problem. We need to work knowing people think this way and keep that in mind when developing policy.
  - Jare 9y ago
    I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone who has all the facts and still doesn't give a fuck. Only new facts will do the trick, facts which, even if not adding to the body of knowledge, have a high fuck giving factor. Like, a tornado destroys their house or such.
    - mc32 9y ago
      I think, like with many things, you have to work with the early adopters, then the bulk and finally the stragglers and at that point you can deal with the hard-core holdouts (or work around them). The key is acknowledging this phenomenon and taking it into account so that policies cane be more successful.
    - Judgmentality 9y ago
      I think the issue is making an emotional connection to the facts. I don't believe any person has the emotional bandwidth to care about every problem in the world.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      > Only new facts will do the trick It's not about information. > Like, a tornado destroys their house or such. That's more like it. In other words, until something is personal people have a very hard time relating to it, no matter how irrefutably true it is.
    - pdkl95 9y ago
      TL;DR - skip straight to [1] > I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone It is possible, but first you have to open a real dialog. That isn't going to happen without first learning to speak their language, because this is "More than just Resistance to Science"[1]. > Only new facts will do the trick Arguments based on facts are useful when trying to persuade people fluent in the language of science and logic. Unfortunately I suspect only a minority of the population has sufficient understanding of data-focused language. Most people instead see language as phatic expression[2][3] first. A good example of this from the other side of the language divide that still retains mutual intelligibility are Trump's repeated - and often self-contradictory - promises that he would "build the wall". People that primarily use language to convey facts often claims his rhetoric sounds ignorant, useless, or xenophobic. Trump's intended audience, on the other hand, hears the language of emotion that promises protection. Trump isn't trying to convey facts, so self-contradiction and other ignorant claims are not important. To reach people on the other side of this divide, it is probably necessary to first learn their language of social hierarchy, emotion, etc. Skipping that step and continuing to throw facts at them is about as useful as sending them a textbook written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. [1] http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resistance-of-s/ http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatic_expression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatic_expression [3] While I'm discussing this as a language problem, some people may prefer George Lakoff's explanation[4] about "framing", which is a different interpretation of essentially the same ideas. [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM
  - spc476 9y ago
    As a pundit I read says, "when those in charge start acting like it's a crisis, I'll believe in the crisis." When you see government officials and Hollywood high-rollers flying in private chartered airplanes to exotic locations for climate change conferences telling the rest of us how we should live, it's hard to think of it as a real crisis.
- jlangenauer 9y ago
  I suspect nothing will convince you, because you've decided that you don't care who suffers for your actions - people in poorer countries, or future generations. This is a rationalisation on your part, not a failure of the scientists.
- DennisP 9y ago
  It's the world's biggest public goods problem. Let's say for the sake of argument that fixing global warming were worth $10K to you. You still don't contribute because it wouldn't help; the marginal improvement to the environment from your little personal contribution wouldn't make any significant difference to your life. It'd certainly be far less than $10K of benefit. So it's entirely rational to skip the actions you describe. But that's true for everyone. We'd all be happier if everybody contributed, but for each of us, we're better off not contributing, whether other people contribute or not. So nobody does much and we all end up worse off. Problems like this crop up all the time and we have a way of dealing with them. Instead of deciding whether we'll personally contribute, we vote on whether we'll all contribute. So if you really believe your first four statements, maybe you could consider voting for politicians who support a price on carbon.
- johnchristopher 9y ago
  So, now that we are over the "there's no climate change" phase, the "humans aren't responsible" phase and the "it's not that bad, we'll adapt or there might be good things coming out of it" phase it is the "scientists are responsible because they couldn't convince me" phase. What a time to be alive.
  - ftlio 9y ago
    That's one name for it. 'I still won't vote for taxes or meaningful legislation on the issue because they're just going to get it wrong anyway.' is the phase's actual name.
    - cmurf 9y ago
      We can trace the widespread notions in the Republican party that the government cannot ever do anything correctly, and should be feared when it tries, to this quote: The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. - Ronald Reagan No no, don't believe in auditing, and ethics, and holding officials accountable with voting, and when necessary prosecutions. Just be scared of the government, and withhold funding so it's small enough to drown in a bathtub. But today's Republicans miss his message (he'd be considered a liberal today, I think) Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. From Reagan's inaugural address.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        The Republican Party capitalizes on that perception but doesn't create it. America's governments are remarkably inept at doing even basic things. I just got back from Tokyo, where my 45 minute train ride from the airport arrived downtown within a minute of schedule. Meanwhile, the D.C. metro segment of my commute runs at best 20% over scheduled time. That's despite being one of the most expensive systems in the world. So many things are like that. We spend more on education than almost anyone else for worse results.
- Theodores 9y ago
  Not really. The baby boomer generation are going to die off and take their miserly attitudes with them. There is no other option other than to move to a post-carbon economy and for it to be renewables all the way. You will die out and new people will come along with different energy demands. They might be happy to get about Dutch style, on a bicycle. To most Americans that mode of transport is unthinkable for things like shopping or bringing up a family, but the Dutch do it. I believe there are plenty of people paving the way for our post-carbon world, building a new and clean world from the filth left behind by the baby boomer generation. Currently millenials do not put 2 and 2 together when it comes to climate change and their personal habits of consumerism, we did better in the 1970's after the crisises of the time at turning lights off when not needed. But this time round we have people using sensors and things like LED lights to keep the energy consumption sensible. The only way for countries like the UK to meet their emissions targets and air quality targets is to get rid of the targets (Brexit) or to get serious about electric cars. Right now one energy company is converting lamp posts to charging points, so soon on-street charging will become very easy. A small step but an important one as it makes the impossible possible and at affordable cost. So you might just get an EV because that is how it works and you just charge up every time you park next to a lamp post. There are only four petrol stations inside the congestion charge zone in London, there used to be far more. Imagine a time when there are none and you have to go to a motorway to find petrol or diesel for your classic retro vehicle. Even General Motors are taking EVs seriously. As for the disposable bag, try visiting the UK. They went extinct when stops started charging for them. The other day I found a hoard of three in a drawer. In former times people would have small cupboards full of the things. It took a long time coming, but the end of the disposable free bag was survived by retailers and consumers alike. I think that EV cars will be like flat screen televisions and ICE cars will be like CRT monitors in not too many years to come. We didn't initially get a better picture with flat screen displays but those richer colours did not save the CRT, even if there were no 'dead pixels'. In a matter of time the batteries will be integrated into the frame or the wheels or even the furnishings and these EV cars will be a far simpler product than those ICE things. The supply chain will die out for ICE and this new post carbon world will start to happen. Watch and see.
  - ourmandave 9y ago

chronic7ui 9y ago

Is Antarctica melting? Yes. Is it bad? Yes. Are humans accelerating it? Yes. Is it bad for my kids and future generations? Yes. Does that mean I'm going to switch to an EV, start taking public transportation in Mountain View, or stop using disposable bags at While Foods? No. Scientists have a long way to convince the billions of people on Earth like me before anyone is going to meaningfully reduce climate change.

mc32 9y ago
I'm not sure why people are downvoting the above comment. Many people think the same way and we have a long way to convince people that their attitudes and behavior need to be modified --both here _and_ in the developing world. It's likely more acute in the developing world since their governments have fewer resources to dedicate to the issue so the populous is on their own to modify behavior and attitudes. Ignoring this issue (that this kind of attitude exists) just compounds the problem. We need to work knowing people think this way and keep that in mind when developing policy.
- Jare 9y ago
  I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone who has all the facts and still doesn't give a fuck. Only new facts will do the trick, facts which, even if not adding to the body of knowledge, have a high fuck giving factor. Like, a tornado destroys their house or such.
  - mc32 9y ago
    I think, like with many things, you have to work with the early adopters, then the bulk and finally the stragglers and at that point you can deal with the hard-core holdouts (or work around them). The key is acknowledging this phenomenon and taking it into account so that policies cane be more successful.
  - Judgmentality 9y ago
    I think the issue is making an emotional connection to the facts. I don't believe any person has the emotional bandwidth to care about every problem in the world.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > Only new facts will do the trick It's not about information. > Like, a tornado destroys their house or such. That's more like it. In other words, until something is personal people have a very hard time relating to it, no matter how irrefutably true it is.
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    TL;DR - skip straight to [1] > I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone It is possible, but first you have to open a real dialog. That isn't going to happen without first learning to speak their language, because this is "More than just Resistance to Science"[1]. > Only new facts will do the trick Arguments based on facts are useful when trying to persuade people fluent in the language of science and logic. Unfortunately I suspect only a minority of the population has sufficient understanding of data-focused language. Most people instead see language as phatic expression[2][3] first. A good example of this from the other side of the language divide that still retains mutual intelligibility are Trump's repeated - and often self-contradictory - promises that he would "build the wall". People that primarily use language to convey facts often claims his rhetoric sounds ignorant, useless, or xenophobic. Trump's intended audience, on the other hand, hears the language of emotion that promises protection. Trump isn't trying to convey facts, so self-contradiction and other ignorant claims are not important. To reach people on the other side of this divide, it is probably necessary to first learn their language of social hierarchy, emotion, etc. Skipping that step and continuing to throw facts at them is about as useful as sending them a textbook written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. [1] http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resistance-of-s/ http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatic_expression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatic_expression [3] While I'm discussing this as a language problem, some people may prefer George Lakoff's explanation[4] about "framing", which is a different interpretation of essentially the same ideas. [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM
- spc476 9y ago
  As a pundit I read says, "when those in charge start acting like it's a crisis, I'll believe in the crisis." When you see government officials and Hollywood high-rollers flying in private chartered airplanes to exotic locations for climate change conferences telling the rest of us how we should live, it's hard to think of it as a real crisis.
jlangenauer 9y ago
I suspect nothing will convince you, because you've decided that you don't care who suffers for your actions - people in poorer countries, or future generations. This is a rationalisation on your part, not a failure of the scientists.
DennisP 9y ago
It's the world's biggest public goods problem. Let's say for the sake of argument that fixing global warming were worth $10K to you. You still don't contribute because it wouldn't help; the marginal improvement to the environment from your little personal contribution wouldn't make any significant difference to your life. It'd certainly be far less than $10K of benefit. So it's entirely rational to skip the actions you describe. But that's true for everyone. We'd all be happier if everybody contributed, but for each of us, we're better off not contributing, whether other people contribute or not. So nobody does much and we all end up worse off. Problems like this crop up all the time and we have a way of dealing with them. Instead of deciding whether we'll personally contribute, we vote on whether we'll all contribute. So if you really believe your first four statements, maybe you could consider voting for politicians who support a price on carbon.
johnchristopher 9y ago
So, now that we are over the "there's no climate change" phase, the "humans aren't responsible" phase and the "it's not that bad, we'll adapt or there might be good things coming out of it" phase it is the "scientists are responsible because they couldn't convince me" phase. What a time to be alive.
- ftlio 9y ago
  That's one name for it. 'I still won't vote for taxes or meaningful legislation on the issue because they're just going to get it wrong anyway.' is the phase's actual name.
  - cmurf 9y ago
    We can trace the widespread notions in the Republican party that the government cannot ever do anything correctly, and should be feared when it tries, to this quote: The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. - Ronald Reagan No no, don't believe in auditing, and ethics, and holding officials accountable with voting, and when necessary prosecutions. Just be scared of the government, and withhold funding so it's small enough to drown in a bathtub. But today's Republicans miss his message (he'd be considered a liberal today, I think) Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. From Reagan's inaugural address.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      The Republican Party capitalizes on that perception but doesn't create it. America's governments are remarkably inept at doing even basic things. I just got back from Tokyo, where my 45 minute train ride from the airport arrived downtown within a minute of schedule. Meanwhile, the D.C. metro segment of my commute runs at best 20% over scheduled time. That's despite being one of the most expensive systems in the world. So many things are like that. We spend more on education than almost anyone else for worse results.
Theodores 9y ago
Not really. The baby boomer generation are going to die off and take their miserly attitudes with them. There is no other option other than to move to a post-carbon economy and for it to be renewables all the way. You will die out and new people will come along with different energy demands. They might be happy to get about Dutch style, on a bicycle. To most Americans that mode of transport is unthinkable for things like shopping or bringing up a family, but the Dutch do it. I believe there are plenty of people paving the way for our post-carbon world, building a new and clean world from the filth left behind by the baby boomer generation. Currently millenials do not put 2 and 2 together when it comes to climate change and their personal habits of consumerism, we did better in the 1970's after the crisises of the time at turning lights off when not needed. But this time round we have people using sensors and things like LED lights to keep the energy consumption sensible. The only way for countries like the UK to meet their emissions targets and air quality targets is to get rid of the targets (Brexit) or to get serious about electric cars. Right now one energy company is converting lamp posts to charging points, so soon on-street charging will become very easy. A small step but an important one as it makes the impossible possible and at affordable cost. So you might just get an EV because that is how it works and you just charge up every time you park next to a lamp post. There are only four petrol stations inside the congestion charge zone in London, there used to be far more. Imagine a time when there are none and you have to go to a motorway to find petrol or diesel for your classic retro vehicle. Even General Motors are taking EVs seriously. As for the disposable bag, try visiting the UK. They went extinct when stops started charging for them. The other day I found a hoard of three in a drawer. In former times people would have small cupboards full of the things. It took a long time coming, but the end of the disposable free bag was survived by retailers and consumers alike. I think that EV cars will be like flat screen televisions and ICE cars will be like CRT monitors in not too many years to come. We didn't initially get a better picture with flat screen displays but those richer colours did not save the CRT, even if there were no 'dead pixels'. In a matter of time the batteries will be integrated into the frame or the wheels or even the furnishings and these EV cars will be a far simpler product than those ICE things. The supply chain will die out for ICE and this new post carbon world will start to happen. Watch and see.
- ourmandave 9y ago