5 ms·

> But his somewhat new Climate Change denial stuff finally made me unfollow him. I don't follow Scott Adams, but my understanding from when he started talking

> But his somewhat new Climate Change denial stuff finally made me unfollow him. I don't follow Scott Adams, but my understanding from when he started talking about that subject is that he is not denying climate change, but he is acting as a climate skeptic in order to bring about debate and enlighten people on all sides. For a (possibly bad and certainly trite) metaphor, it's somewhat like saying "Gravity is settled science" to a gravity denialist. You could instead provide some facts and experiments they could try such as holding their hands above their head to fight the force[0] of gravity. They could decide they don't think your facts are correct and perhaps theorize other reasons why they cannot hold their hands above their head indefinitely. That's science, where even gravity is "just" a theory[1]. [0] Apparently in the Theory of Relatively, gravity is not actually a force, but a consequence of the curvature of space-time and uneven distribution of mass [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Modern_alternative_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Modern_alternative_the...

coldtea 8y ago
>I don't follow Scott Adams, but my understanding from when he started talking about that subject is that he is not denying climate change, but he is acting as a climate skeptic in order to bring about debate and enlighten people on all sides. Apparently this is not allowed in polite company.
- ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
  Of course its allowed. And I would love Adam's attempt to "enlighten people" if that was really his goal. But I'm saying this as a long time super fan... that isn't what it feels like to follow him anymore. I think he is less passionate about entertaining people or enlightening people, and more interested in bolstering his conservative credibility. I don't know why his career arched in that direction, and its his right to do whatever he likes. But for me I have had to jump off the train because doesn't seem to be tied to what I liked about his humor. I'm the conservative version of an Al Franken fan. We came for the comedy, but at some point it isn't about that anymore.
  - acqq 8y ago
    I agree with you, he doesn't write/speak about that topic like somebody who's just uninformed and is ready to learn. He uses invalid arguments and false claims there, which is not contributing to anything but, like you say, his "credibility" among those that need to identify with such public personas, for whatever reason they have. And his is getting "attention". It would not be different if he were a flat earther, and it's equally worthless.
dontbenebby 8y ago
>I don't follow Scott Adams, but my understanding from when he started talking about that subject is that he is not denying climate change We don't need debate on climate change. There are not "sides". (Unless you count reality and magical thinking as "sides".)
- edmundsauto 8y ago
  We absolutely need debate and skeptics on climate change. Debate doesn't mean adversarial; it means questioning the evidence and possible interventions. If we aren't debating on climate change, how do we decide where to put resources to reduce emissions and clean up existing pollution?
  - dontbenebby 8y ago
    >Debate doesn't mean adversarial; it means questioning the evidence Questioning the evidence of climate change is de facto adversarial. The evidence is overwhelming and beyond question. No intelligent, sane person arguing in good faith would argue otherwise.
    - edmundsauto 8y ago
      Your derision and perspective are more appropriate for a religious zealot than a scientific thinker. Skepticism is the heart of science. I have not invested enough time in understanding the currently best climate models. I must, therefore, take a skeptical approach and question conclusions drawn from that evidence. Especially so for a projection. For the level of assurance you seem to have, I assume that you have rerun models yourself, have a deep understanding of complex systems and statistics, and done other climactic work? Even that is skepticism applied and questions asked.

coldtea 8y ago

>I don't follow Scott Adams, but my understanding from when he started talking about that subject is that he is not denying climate change, but he is acting as a climate skeptic in order to bring about debate and enlighten people on all sides. Apparently this is not allowed in polite company.

ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
Of course its allowed. And I would love Adam's attempt to "enlighten people" if that was really his goal. But I'm saying this as a long time super fan... that isn't what it feels like to follow him anymore. I think he is less passionate about entertaining people or enlightening people, and more interested in bolstering his conservative credibility. I don't know why his career arched in that direction, and its his right to do whatever he likes. But for me I have had to jump off the train because doesn't seem to be tied to what I liked about his humor. I'm the conservative version of an Al Franken fan. We came for the comedy, but at some point it isn't about that anymore.
- acqq 8y ago
  I agree with you, he doesn't write/speak about that topic like somebody who's just uninformed and is ready to learn. He uses invalid arguments and false claims there, which is not contributing to anything but, like you say, his "credibility" among those that need to identify with such public personas, for whatever reason they have. And his is getting "attention". It would not be different if he were a flat earther, and it's equally worthless.

dontbenebby 8y ago

>I don't follow Scott Adams, but my understanding from when he started talking about that subject is that he is not denying climate change We don't need debate on climate change. There are not "sides". (Unless you count reality and magical thinking as "sides".)

edmundsauto 8y ago
We absolutely need debate and skeptics on climate change. Debate doesn't mean adversarial; it means questioning the evidence and possible interventions. If we aren't debating on climate change, how do we decide where to put resources to reduce emissions and clean up existing pollution?
- dontbenebby 8y ago
  >Debate doesn't mean adversarial; it means questioning the evidence Questioning the evidence of climate change is de facto adversarial. The evidence is overwhelming and beyond question. No intelligent, sane person arguing in good faith would argue otherwise.
  - edmundsauto 8y ago
    Your derision and perspective are more appropriate for a religious zealot than a scientific thinker. Skepticism is the heart of science. I have not invested enough time in understanding the currently best climate models. I must, therefore, take a skeptical approach and question conclusions drawn from that evidence. Especially so for a projection. For the level of assurance you seem to have, I assume that you have rerun models yourself, have a deep understanding of complex systems and statistics, and done other climactic work? Even that is skepticism applied and questions asked.