6 ms·

Am I the only one who winces at the brain-numbing robot-like false confidence and dogmatic preaching of attributing all natural disaster to man-made climate cha

by lasky 7y ago

Am I the only one who winces at the brain-numbing robot-like false confidence and dogmatic preaching of attributing all natural disaster to man-made climate change?

elil17 7y ago
No. Other people who also don’t understand the evidence around climate change also try to deny that pollution causes natural disasters.
strken 7y ago
There's a reasonable case for the impact of climate change here: the drought in Australia has been partly caused by the reversal of the Indian Ocean gyre, which is linked to climate change, and the fires occurred during a heatwave, during a time when heatwave are becoming more common, which is also linked to climate change. Like you I'm also frustrated by the dogmatism around climate change. I think the majority of people on both sides have chosen their position on the basis of political allegiance and social identity rather than a consideration of both sides, and that's a really big problem because it moves the debate away from observable reality and into the realm of politics.
- skeletonjelly 7y ago
  One side is supported by evidence though. This isn't choosing a favourite OS, this is accepting or denying science.
  - strken 7y ago
    As mentioned on the above comment, I don't think the sides are "yes" or "no", I think they're "do nothing" and "make enormous sacrifices to economic growth and non-climate government expenditure". It's extremely frustrating to watch this debate happen because nobody is engaging with the "do nothing" side and trying to convince them, just beating on the strawman of outright climate change denial.
- yesenadam 7y ago
  >the majority of people on both sides have chosen their position on the basis of political allegiance and social identity rather than a consideration of both sides How would you suggest most people actually consider "both sides"? (i.e. a method not requiring more skills than most people have, or more time than most people would want to invest.) I think I have above average skills in reading scientific papers etc, but still it's not clear to me at all how to go about doing that. I guess I'd find the climate change report that seemed to have the most credibility with (ultimately) the kind of people whose politics I like, and yield to that because of its authority. Not much "considering" involved. And..are there actually only two "sides"?
  - strken 7y ago
    > How would you suggest most people actually consider "both sides"? I'd suggest that they have a look at local weather data going back a couple of decades, compare it to global data, check out the methodologies used to calculate that data, read a few of the best resources they can find from each side, and try to work out what the debate is about. I don't think many people will change their minds, but I hope that they'll learn what both sides actually are and come to have more respect for the other side. > And..are there actually only two "sides"? I think there are two sides to the question "how much effort should we spend preventing climate change?", and those sides are "no effort" and "all available effort", with plenty of middle ground. I think serious debate around climate change is about where we are on that continuum, rather than whether man-made climate change is actually happening.

by lasky 7y ago

Am I the only one who winces at the brain-numbing robot-like false confidence and dogmatic preaching of attributing all natural disaster to man-made climate change?

elil17 7y ago

No. Other people who also don’t understand the evidence around climate change also try to deny that pollution causes natural disasters.

strken 7y ago

There's a reasonable case for the impact of climate change here: the drought in Australia has been partly caused by the reversal of the Indian Ocean gyre, which is linked to climate change, and the fires occurred during a heatwave, during a time when heatwave are becoming more common, which is also linked to climate change. Like you I'm also frustrated by the dogmatism around climate change. I think the majority of people on both sides have chosen their position on the basis of political allegiance and social identity rather than a consideration of both sides, and that's a really big problem because it moves the debate away from observable reality and into the realm of politics.

skeletonjelly 7y ago
One side is supported by evidence though. This isn't choosing a favourite OS, this is accepting or denying science.
- strken 7y ago
  As mentioned on the above comment, I don't think the sides are "yes" or "no", I think they're "do nothing" and "make enormous sacrifices to economic growth and non-climate government expenditure". It's extremely frustrating to watch this debate happen because nobody is engaging with the "do nothing" side and trying to convince them, just beating on the strawman of outright climate change denial.
yesenadam 7y ago
>the majority of people on both sides have chosen their position on the basis of political allegiance and social identity rather than a consideration of both sides How would you suggest most people actually consider "both sides"? (i.e. a method not requiring more skills than most people have, or more time than most people would want to invest.) I think I have above average skills in reading scientific papers etc, but still it's not clear to me at all how to go about doing that. I guess I'd find the climate change report that seemed to have the most credibility with (ultimately) the kind of people whose politics I like, and yield to that because of its authority. Not much "considering" involved. And..are there actually only two "sides"?
- strken 7y ago
  > How would you suggest most people actually consider "both sides"? I'd suggest that they have a look at local weather data going back a couple of decades, compare it to global data, check out the methodologies used to calculate that data, read a few of the best resources they can find from each side, and try to work out what the debate is about. I don't think many people will change their minds, but I hope that they'll learn what both sides actually are and come to have more respect for the other side. > And..are there actually only two "sides"? I think there are two sides to the question "how much effort should we spend preventing climate change?", and those sides are "no effort" and "all available effort", with plenty of middle ground. I think serious debate around climate change is about where we are on that continuum, rather than whether man-made climate change is actually happening.