4 ms·

> 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, wast

by 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.
- WA 7y ago
  > And here you are, responding as if you didn't read a single thing I wrote I did, I just don’t think this is the discussion I want to have. It’s a strawman in a way. It’s like this argument "what harm is in asking questions" as if asking a question wasn’t a way to frame a conversation. IMHO, you make the conversation a lot more difficult. For sure, we can talk about human psychology and ego in terms of climate change. But maybe it makes sense to have this conversation goal-oriented. Your points a-c: a) It’s interesting to you, it’s boring for others. b) This includes a) and makes a) goal-oriented. Yes, we can talk about how effective the current approach is to deal with climate change. We can also talk on how to optimize this conversation. Part of this might be to understand the deniers to some extend. But this has its limits. It’s hard to be goal-oriented with people that are merely destructive. It’s like talking to Nazis. At some point, this is pointless, because hate is all that comes out of their mouths. c) Criticism is allowed. Derailing the conversation however is ineffective. Talking about conspiracy stuff that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny is ineffective. But it’s done all the time by deniers. And people who think climate change is real got a little tired by all the BS. Your last two paragraphs are cryptic. Please add some actionable ideas to this discussion. Because simply asking me to think about stuff you are unable to point out exactly is lazy. I have a hard time extracting any actionable and useful information from your posts that deal with either climate change itself or with the discussion around it. All you keep repeating is that psychology and ego should be added to the discussion or the human brain should be exploited. Like how exactly? What’s your plan? What’s the goal you wanna achieve?
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > I did, I just don’t think this is the discussion I want to have. So, you replied to something in which you are not interest, with words related to content in which you are interested? This is something I haven't seen before. > It’s a strawman in a way. It’s like this argument "what harm is in asking questions" as if asking a question wasn’t a way to frame a conversation. Things are sometimes like that, but this isn't one of those times. I challenge you to choose some words I'm saying that you believe are guilty of that. And please don't frame it as if the actual conversation is about the topic you are interested in ("If all climate models are wrong, it still makes sense to..."), and it is I who changed the subject. > IMHO, you make the conversation a lot more difficult. For sure, we can talk about human psychology and ego in terms of climate change. I'm way ahead of you, this is what I was already discussing. My comment is right there for you and others to review, what you hope to achieve by feigning surprise is beyond me. > Your points a-c: My questions were written as a response to @svara's question: "How does that move the conversation forward?" > a) It’s interesting to you, it’s boring for others. Ok. May I ask: why did you reply? > b) This includes a) and makes a) goal-oriented. Yes, we can talk about how effective the current approach is to deal with climate change. We can also talk on how to optimize this conversation. Part of this might be to understand the deniers to some extend. But this has its limits. Does it? Upon what do you base this assertion? > It’s hard to be goal-oriented with people that are merely destructive. Upon what is your assertion that they are "merely destructive" based? > It’s like talking to Nazis. At some point, this is pointless, because hate is all that comes out of their mouths. This is an absurdly broad generalization, and it kind of sounds like the kind of thing someone on the internet would just make up. Once again, upon what do you base this assertion? > c) Criticism is allowed. Derailing the conversation however is ineffective. I'm not derailing the conversation. I introduced a new topic, and a conversation ensued based upon that new topic. You entered that discussion, and attempted to redirect the topic of conversation, and now you are giving me advice on how to conduct myself? > Talking about conspiracy stuff that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny is ineffective. Really? Lots of people believe conspiracy theorists and deniers actually spread their ideas. > But it’s done all the time by deniers. And people who think climate change is real got a little tired by all the BS. Sorry to hear that. > Your last two paragraphs are cryptic. You asked: "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"?", and I replied telling you to essentially think. This is cryptic advice? > Please add some actionable ideas to this discussion. Because simply asking me to think about stuff you are unable to point out exactly is lazy. Entering a conversation, changing the topic, and then refusing to think is.....I dunno, absurd? > All you keep repeating is that psychology and ego should be added to the discussion or the human brain should be exploited. Like how exactly? What’s your plan? What’s the goal you wanna achieve? All of this is very clearly contained within the text of the discussion. I'm not sure if your ignorance is feigned or genuine, but I don't have the energy to find out. Not to say that I'm not curious though, this is one of the more interesting permutations of unusual behavior I've encountered yet.

by WA 7y ago

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.

WA 7y ago
> And here you are, responding as if you didn't read a single thing I wrote I did, I just don’t think this is the discussion I want to have. It’s a strawman in a way. It’s like this argument "what harm is in asking questions" as if asking a question wasn’t a way to frame a conversation. IMHO, you make the conversation a lot more difficult. For sure, we can talk about human psychology and ego in terms of climate change. But maybe it makes sense to have this conversation goal-oriented. Your points a-c: a) It’s interesting to you, it’s boring for others. b) This includes a) and makes a) goal-oriented. Yes, we can talk about how effective the current approach is to deal with climate change. We can also talk on how to optimize this conversation. Part of this might be to understand the deniers to some extend. But this has its limits. It’s hard to be goal-oriented with people that are merely destructive. It’s like talking to Nazis. At some point, this is pointless, because hate is all that comes out of their mouths. c) Criticism is allowed. Derailing the conversation however is ineffective. Talking about conspiracy stuff that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny is ineffective. But it’s done all the time by deniers. And people who think climate change is real got a little tired by all the BS. Your last two paragraphs are cryptic. Please add some actionable ideas to this discussion. Because simply asking me to think about stuff you are unable to point out exactly is lazy. I have a hard time extracting any actionable and useful information from your posts that deal with either climate change itself or with the discussion around it. All you keep repeating is that psychology and ego should be added to the discussion or the human brain should be exploited. Like how exactly? What’s your plan? What’s the goal you wanna achieve?
- mistermann 7y ago
  > I did, I just don’t think this is the discussion I want to have. So, you replied to something in which you are not interest, with words related to content in which you are interested? This is something I haven't seen before. > It’s a strawman in a way. It’s like this argument "what harm is in asking questions" as if asking a question wasn’t a way to frame a conversation. Things are sometimes like that, but this isn't one of those times. I challenge you to choose some words I'm saying that you believe are guilty of that. And please don't frame it as if the actual conversation is about the topic you are interested in ("If all climate models are wrong, it still makes sense to..."), and it is I who changed the subject. > IMHO, you make the conversation a lot more difficult. For sure, we can talk about human psychology and ego in terms of climate change. I'm way ahead of you, this is what I was already discussing. My comment is right there for you and others to review, what you hope to achieve by feigning surprise is beyond me. > Your points a-c: My questions were written as a response to @svara's question: "How does that move the conversation forward?" > a) It’s interesting to you, it’s boring for others. Ok. May I ask: why did you reply? > b) This includes a) and makes a) goal-oriented. Yes, we can talk about how effective the current approach is to deal with climate change. We can also talk on how to optimize this conversation. Part of this might be to understand the deniers to some extend. But this has its limits. Does it? Upon what do you base this assertion? > It’s hard to be goal-oriented with people that are merely destructive. Upon what is your assertion that they are "merely destructive" based? > It’s like talking to Nazis. At some point, this is pointless, because hate is all that comes out of their mouths. This is an absurdly broad generalization, and it kind of sounds like the kind of thing someone on the internet would just make up. Once again, upon what do you base this assertion? > c) Criticism is allowed. Derailing the conversation however is ineffective. I'm not derailing the conversation. I introduced a new topic, and a conversation ensued based upon that new topic. You entered that discussion, and attempted to redirect the topic of conversation, and now you are giving me advice on how to conduct myself? > Talking about conspiracy stuff that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny is ineffective. Really? Lots of people believe conspiracy theorists and deniers actually spread their ideas. > But it’s done all the time by deniers. And people who think climate change is real got a little tired by all the BS. Sorry to hear that. > Your last two paragraphs are cryptic. You asked: "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"?", and I replied telling you to essentially think. This is cryptic advice? > Please add some actionable ideas to this discussion. Because simply asking me to think about stuff you are unable to point out exactly is lazy. Entering a conversation, changing the topic, and then refusing to think is.....I dunno, absurd? > All you keep repeating is that psychology and ego should be added to the discussion or the human brain should be exploited. Like how exactly? What’s your plan? What’s the goal you wanna achieve? All of this is very clearly contained within the text of the discussion. I'm not sure if your ignorance is feigned or genuine, but I don't have the energy to find out. Not to say that I'm not curious though, this is one of the more interesting permutations of unusual behavior I've encountered yet.