3 ms·

Part of the problem here is that extremists have subjected us to at least three decades of climate alarmism poisoned by bad science and failed predictions. Peo

Part of the problem here is that extremists have subjected us to at least three decades of climate alarmism poisoned by bad science and failed predictions. People who lack the scientific background to properly understand specific claims and the basis for them rely on ignorant heuristics, such as "the boy who cried wolf". They wrongly conclude that the current round of climate concern is no different than the rounds they've previously experienced.

gbrown 7y ago
Is that true? I feel like the mainstream scientific picture has been alarming (correctly) for that whole period, and people (using ignorant heuristics) have incorrectly discounted the warnings since they don't feel the pain right now.
- jshevek 7y ago
  Both [your observation and mine] are true. I am not talking about mainstream scientists. Sadly, they don't control the larger conversations.
  - ajross 7y ago
    > I am not talking about mainstream scientists. Then who are you talking about?
    - jshevek 7y ago
      > Then who are you talking about? This question is so strange I don't know where to begin. Should I look up the percentage of the population that are scientists? Should I pull up an Amazon list of books popular in the 70s and 80s dealing with climate change? Should I start listing various forms of dysfunction in the 4th estate? Should we talk about the culture of activists? Disseminating scientific knowledge correctly is a challenge in our society.
      - ajross 7y ago
        OK, start with those. I mean, your point upthread is that you didn't personally believe all the good science of the last 30 years because of some "extremists", which now apparently includes the entirety of the media and political left. I think that's a pretty ridiculous argument, and am challenging you to give me some specifics to focus the discussion. You don't get to wave this away. Let's see who you're talking about.
        jshevek 7y ago
        Please try not to misrepresent other people's claims nor presume their experiences. >I mean, your point upthread is that you didn't personally believe all the good science of the last 30 years because of some "extremists"
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
ajross 7y ago
> extremists have subjected us to at least three decades of climate alarmism poisoned by bad science and failed predictions. I'm sure someone said something dumb. But straightforward models of long term climate change and CO2 output going back to the 70's have all been largely proven out. Which "extremists" are you trying to point the finger at, specifically?
- jshevek 7y ago
  > I'm sure someone said something dumb Yes, just one person. Edit: I try not to engage with people who use this kind of rhetorical technique. If anyone else is honestly ignorant of and curious about the damaging effects that decades of climate alarmism has had on some people's trust, you need only Google. For example: "bad climate change predictions" In my opinion, the problem still exists and it is important to be honest about the elements (activists, journalists, politicians) who are on the 'right side' of the discussion but do a poor job of representing the data.

gbrown 7y ago

Is that true? I feel like the mainstream scientific picture has been alarming (correctly) for that whole period, and people (using ignorant heuristics) have incorrectly discounted the warnings since they don't feel the pain right now.

jshevek 7y ago
Both [your observation and mine] are true. I am not talking about mainstream scientists. Sadly, they don't control the larger conversations.
- ajross 7y ago
  > I am not talking about mainstream scientists. Then who are you talking about?
  - jshevek 7y ago
    > Then who are you talking about? This question is so strange I don't know where to begin. Should I look up the percentage of the population that are scientists? Should I pull up an Amazon list of books popular in the 70s and 80s dealing with climate change? Should I start listing various forms of dysfunction in the 4th estate? Should we talk about the culture of activists? Disseminating scientific knowledge correctly is a challenge in our society.
    - ajross 7y ago
      OK, start with those. I mean, your point upthread is that you didn't personally believe all the good science of the last 30 years because of some "extremists", which now apparently includes the entirety of the media and political left. I think that's a pretty ridiculous argument, and am challenging you to give me some specifics to focus the discussion. You don't get to wave this away. Let's see who you're talking about.
      - jshevek 7y ago
        Please try not to misrepresent other people's claims nor presume their experiences. >I mean, your point upthread is that you didn't personally believe all the good science of the last 30 years because of some "extremists"
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]

ajross 7y ago

> extremists have subjected us to at least three decades of climate alarmism poisoned by bad science and failed predictions. I'm sure someone said something dumb. But straightforward models of long term climate change and CO2 output going back to the 70's have all been largely proven out. Which "extremists" are you trying to point the finger at, specifically?

jshevek 7y ago
> I'm sure someone said something dumb Yes, just one person. Edit: I try not to engage with people who use this kind of rhetorical technique. If anyone else is honestly ignorant of and curious about the damaging effects that decades of climate alarmism has had on some people's trust, you need only Google. For example: "bad climate change predictions" In my opinion, the problem still exists and it is important to be honest about the elements (activists, journalists, politicians) who are on the 'right side' of the discussion but do a poor job of representing the data.