4 ms·

You are saying a lot of different, seemingly subtle things, while heavily hedging everything, which makes it super hard to have a meaningful discussion. I am ho

• mistermann 7y ago
  > You are saying a lot of different, seemingly subtle things, while heavily hedging everything, which makes it super hard to have a meaningful discussion. "While heavily hedging everything", I suspect, is my unusual writing style, where I explicitly qualify that which is speculative, as being speculative, as opposed to the more common practice of presenting estimates and speculation as cold hard facts. It's a bit concerning that the precise use of language seems to be (here I am speculating, and open to correction) considered somehow inappropriate in a discussion where people are complaining about the discussion not being based on facts. I would counter that having a meaningful discussion is difficult when people claim to be arguing in good faith, and accuse others of not doing so, but then proceed to completely ignore the core arguments the supposedly poor-faith person makes. (To be clear, you are not one of those people.) >> Agreed, but this does not logically preclude my concerns that it is possible that [...] > I mean, if you're talking philosophy here, I obviously agree that this is a logical possibility, but how does that move the conversation forward? Well, I would say it moves the conversation forward in that: a) I seem to have been successful in clearing up your speculation that my beliefs are grounded not in conspiracy theory, but in sound logic and epistemology: reality as it actually is, which includes things that are unknown, as opposed to how people like to pretend it is, where there are no unknowns b) Perhaps now you may be open to consider that "deniers" are not all conspiracy theorists, but may rather be reacting with suspicion to an incredibly complex situation, which then might facilitate you opening up to my larger core idea, that it may be possible that the current gridlock in forming consensus that we are experiencing may be caused not entirely by people misunderstanding or not believing "the science", but due to complex, unseen psychological behaviors (tribalism, revenge, etc) that we all know exist, but seem amazingly reluctant to admit to acknowledging within the context of this and similar discussions c) I may have been successful for the first time in getting someone to acknowledge that what I say is not false > What we need to see is evidence one way or the other. I hope you now see what I am saying: that perhaps this is not true. That a lack of scientific evidence is not what we need (we have overwhelming amounts already), but rather, we need to stop fighting. > I would suggest to focus on specific points of contention and cite sources. This forces everyone in the discussion to actually go researching those sources in the first place, which should improve the level of dialog. My point of contention is that people are unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that the core problem is not a misunderstanding of climate science, but a misunderstanding of human psychology, and how to get along. As evidence, I offer interactions in this and prior threads: repeated evidence of no one (prior to you) being willing to address what I actually say, usually via refusal to have a discussion, but when they do reply, addressing not what I say, but instead manufactured strawmen. I'll post one of my favorite videos of all time: Why Trump Will Win - Michael Moore Explains https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMm5HfxNXY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMm5HfxNXY4 Can you see any possible parallels between the seemingly illogical behavior displayed by people voting for Trump ("against their interests") and the seemingly illogical behavior displayed by people opposing climate change initiatives (also against their interests)? I have a strong feeling that there might be something important here we're missing, but I am not sure. You're welcome to your own opinion on the matter, but the key points I'd like to draw your attention toward are: - Are you sure? How would you even know (particularly considering no one has studied the matter)? - What if you're wrong?
  • WA 7y ago
    > What if you're wrong? This is the right question and there is an easy answer: If all climate models are wrong, it still makes sense to reduce emissions, waste, garbage, cruelty to animals etc. Worst case would be that we "wasted" money on stuff that makes no difference to the climate. But did you answer the question from the other side? What if you're wrong and there IS man-made climate change? Well, then we simply can't afford to burn more fossil fuels etc. Edit: Just watched your video. Yeah, human psychology. But how do you solve this if one part of humans think that the only thing that's left is a "giant middle finger to the system"?
    • lopmotr 7y ago
      A bit off your conversation, wasted money means lives lost. A direct example is, building, vehicle, and work safety tends to increase as people are more able to afford the extra costs of safety features. Those things are both cheaper and less safe in poorer countries. Another example is the 2008 world food price crisis which killed people and is partly attributed to biofuel subsidies causing food crops to be replaced with biofuel crops. There are surely much bigger and more indirect causes of loss of life like reduced future technology due to reduced research and industry as people can't afford fancy ambitious stuff.
    • mistermann 7y ago
      >> What if you're wrong? > This is the right question and there is an easy answer: If all climate models are wrong, it still makes sense to reduce emissions, waste, garbage, cruelty to animals etc. Worst case would be that we "wasted" money on stuff that makes no difference to the climate. See, this behavior is exactly what I find so fascinating. My comments were clearly not about the trustworthiness of climate models, but rather the conversation around climate models, and the potential impacts of misunderstanding people's underlying reasoning/motives for "not supporting" the climate change initiative. I posted a link to a specific video that does a good job of explaining this type of behavior, with respect to the last election, following that up with questions that were clearly ("Can you see any possible parallels between the seemingly illogical behavior...") about the video itself, and the applicability of the ideas contained within, to the climate change debate. And here you are, responding as if you didn't read a single thing I wrote, as if you are working from some completely different text, with distinctly different content. What is causing this behavior? How does no one notice this? It's like a textbook perfect example of the elephant in the room. > But did you answer the question from the other side? What if you're wrong and there IS man-made climate change? Well, then we simply can't afford to burn more fossil fuels etc. I've answered this many times. I am not not opposed to, or in denial of (in any noteworthy way at least), the climate change science. My concerns and interests are regarding: a) the nature of the debate b) the effectiveness of the current approach c) the lack of willingness of people to discuss the topic in any form other than complete, blind wholesale acceptance - no criticism allowed, even if offered in the spirit of improvement > Yeah, human psychology. Yeah, "no biggie". Totally inconsequential. > But how do you solve this if one part of humans think that the only thing that's left is a "giant middle finger to the system"? As always, I recommend exploiting the massive computational power of the human brain, while being acutely aware of its sibling: the human ego. A good place to start would be putting a little effort into determining whether "one part of humans think that the only thing that's left is a "giant middle finger to the system"" is an accurate (from a pragmatic policy perspective) representation of what is actually happening, and what the possible consequences if it assumed to be accurate, but is actually not.