4 ms·

That joke boils down to "just do what we say even if we're wrong". That message isn't going to fly with a lot of people, especially in the US, where many are d

That joke boils down to "just do what we say even if we're wrong". That message isn't going to fly with a lot of people, especially in the US, where many are deeply suspicious of the government. Reminds me of Steve Bannon telling some Republican congressman "look, you really have no choice, you have to support this proposal". To which the guy replied "last time someone told me I had to do something I was 18 and it was my daddy, and I didn't listen then either". "Do what we say or we all die" is also not a great message...even if it's true (which, personally, I doubt).

tsimionescu 7y ago
How can you possibly doubt that? What have you seen to convince yourself that catastrophic climate change is not real? Or perhaps you're taking the other rational position - that even if we did what they say, we'll still die... Oh, and the joke boils down to no such thing. It is very explicitly 'even if we were somehow wrong about climate change, there are so many other huge advantages to getting rid of fossil fuels'.
- leftyted 7y ago
  My understanding is that "we're all going to die" is not a widely accepted view among climate scientists. I am skeptical of "catastrophic climate change leading to the end of life as we know it or the extinction of humanity" e.g. Wells' The Uninhabitable Earth. Anyway, my point was simple. If you want to sell people on "huge advantages to getting rid of fossil fuels" then sell them on that. Don't use a stick when you could use a carrot. This stuff is political. It's about persuasion, personal relationships, talking to people like they're not idiots (even if they are), showing respect, and so on. It's not about being right.
  - mlaretallack 7y ago
    "It's not about being right." This is the best advice to all sides. I have found in the past that the best way to convince people is not to try to "convince" them that my "view" is correct but to listen to their views. I call this being a "Cardboard engineer". It does not work for everyone.
  - ska 7y ago
    Catastrophic climate change isn't expected to lead to extinction of humanity though, and very few people with any sense would characterize it that way (I'm sure you can find a few) What is expected is: increasing, and increasingly damaging weather events yoy. Destruction of a bunch of viable agricultural land, and abrupt change in more. Destruction of a lot of low lying infrastructure close to water. Secondary effects include mass migrations and health crisis in some populations affected by previous. etc. Things get more expensive and painful all over. Almost all of the policy making in this area so far, globally, has not been evidence based (or even evidence acknowledging). That's the real thing to change. There isn't a clear cut answer to any of this, just risk management and mitigation. But the action so far has been almost entirely "delay, this is hard". And so the problem, and probable impacts, gets worse. It's a little like a nation-state version of ignoring your credit card debt because you don't want to think about it. And then arguing around the dinner table about how bad it is without anyone having looked at a statement in years.
    - leftyted 7y ago
      > What's wrong with selling people on "Use the best available data and expertice to make logical policy decisions" ? There hasn't been much of that in this area, to date. Because it amounts to "you have no choice, look at these graphs, do as I say" and people don't like hearing that. You have a scientist's bias against politics. Most people on HN have it. But we're stuck with politics and politics is about persuasion. You have to convince people and people are not rational automatons. You don't convince people by "showing them irrefutable evidence". First, because no evidence is actually irrefutable and second, because it frames the conversation in terms of "I am smart, I have knowledge, I have research, you are ignorant, you need my knowledge to choose correctly". That's not going to convince people even if it's true. Finally, it's a good thing that politics is about persuasion. The only alternatives are worse.
      - ska 7y ago
        > Because it amounts to "you have no choice, look at these graphs, do as I say" It doesn't, though. I'm not saying you can take the politics out of something like this, or that you should. The last thing I am is a technocrat. But policy makers should be working from good information when they can. What I am saying is that the politicians, for the most part, are choosing avoidance and the arguments being made for the most part are superficial and often naive, both for and against. It's up you and I (and everyone, at least in a democratic society) to insist they hold themselves to a higher standard and actually do the work. The (actual, not media) science, for the most part is not contentious - but that doesn't actually mean that the scientists know what is best from a policy point of view. However, the politicians are mostly operating in a way that avoids too much contact with what is known. It's the easier path, but incredibly unlikely to lead to anything useful.

tsimionescu 7y ago

How can you possibly doubt that? What have you seen to convince yourself that catastrophic climate change is not real? Or perhaps you're taking the other rational position - that even if we did what they say, we'll still die... Oh, and the joke boils down to no such thing. It is very explicitly 'even if we were somehow wrong about climate change, there are so many other huge advantages to getting rid of fossil fuels'.

leftyted 7y ago
My understanding is that "we're all going to die" is not a widely accepted view among climate scientists. I am skeptical of "catastrophic climate change leading to the end of life as we know it or the extinction of humanity" e.g. Wells' The Uninhabitable Earth. Anyway, my point was simple. If you want to sell people on "huge advantages to getting rid of fossil fuels" then sell them on that. Don't use a stick when you could use a carrot. This stuff is political. It's about persuasion, personal relationships, talking to people like they're not idiots (even if they are), showing respect, and so on. It's not about being right.
- mlaretallack 7y ago
  "It's not about being right." This is the best advice to all sides. I have found in the past that the best way to convince people is not to try to "convince" them that my "view" is correct but to listen to their views. I call this being a "Cardboard engineer". It does not work for everyone.
- ska 7y ago
  Catastrophic climate change isn't expected to lead to extinction of humanity though, and very few people with any sense would characterize it that way (I'm sure you can find a few) What is expected is: increasing, and increasingly damaging weather events yoy. Destruction of a bunch of viable agricultural land, and abrupt change in more. Destruction of a lot of low lying infrastructure close to water. Secondary effects include mass migrations and health crisis in some populations affected by previous. etc. Things get more expensive and painful all over. Almost all of the policy making in this area so far, globally, has not been evidence based (or even evidence acknowledging). That's the real thing to change. There isn't a clear cut answer to any of this, just risk management and mitigation. But the action so far has been almost entirely "delay, this is hard". And so the problem, and probable impacts, gets worse. It's a little like a nation-state version of ignoring your credit card debt because you don't want to think about it. And then arguing around the dinner table about how bad it is without anyone having looked at a statement in years.
  - leftyted 7y ago
    > What's wrong with selling people on "Use the best available data and expertice to make logical policy decisions" ? There hasn't been much of that in this area, to date. Because it amounts to "you have no choice, look at these graphs, do as I say" and people don't like hearing that. You have a scientist's bias against politics. Most people on HN have it. But we're stuck with politics and politics is about persuasion. You have to convince people and people are not rational automatons. You don't convince people by "showing them irrefutable evidence". First, because no evidence is actually irrefutable and second, because it frames the conversation in terms of "I am smart, I have knowledge, I have research, you are ignorant, you need my knowledge to choose correctly". That's not going to convince people even if it's true. Finally, it's a good thing that politics is about persuasion. The only alternatives are worse.
    - ska 7y ago
      > Because it amounts to "you have no choice, look at these graphs, do as I say" It doesn't, though. I'm not saying you can take the politics out of something like this, or that you should. The last thing I am is a technocrat. But policy makers should be working from good information when they can. What I am saying is that the politicians, for the most part, are choosing avoidance and the arguments being made for the most part are superficial and often naive, both for and against. It's up you and I (and everyone, at least in a democratic society) to insist they hold themselves to a higher standard and actually do the work. The (actual, not media) science, for the most part is not contentious - but that doesn't actually mean that the scientists know what is best from a policy point of view. However, the politicians are mostly operating in a way that avoids too much contact with what is known. It's the easier path, but incredibly unlikely to lead to anything useful.