3 ms·

OK, I see that the "you are dumb" argument is towards me now. I know that cigarettes are bad for my lungs and for my heart. How do I know that? Because I can r

OK, I see that the "you are dumb" argument is towards me now. I know that cigarettes are bad for my lungs and for my heart. How do I know that? Because I can read ONE COMMON OPINION everywhere. All the time. Nobody claims it is good. Global warming? I hear everything pro and con and then more. Your answer is essentially: go learn something because it is true. The funny part? I know very well this is true. How? Where to look for the ELI5 version? No idea. Suppose one moment you are not an expert in quantum mechanics, especially the multiverse model. Out of your head, where are you going to go to learn about that? Wikipedia? OK, let's see the "Scientific consensus and society" part for global warming. Lines and lines of explanation that all scientists say it is true. Do you see something like that elsewhere? No? So it means that the topic is far, far from being obvious and that we should have a good campaign, oriented to normal people such as myself (and not erudits such as you) to explain it clearly. I live in France and I have not seen one such campaign. So much for awareness. Your position is exactly what drives people away from science: "With your level of education it shouldn't be at all difficult to find a resource that answers your questions. Instead you've sought out two comic strips and two extremely ideological sources.", "Again, this has all been said thousands of times. If it helps to have somebody explain it to you, great." etc. Have you ever taught others? Well I did for years and telling them "you dumb people, you should know this so move your ass and learn" is not going to help. Of course I (as in me personally) know how global warming works. My neighbours do not. Because what they hear is "you should know because it is simple" You say you are frustrated. I spent 30 years pushing science into the head of people, either willingly or not (-I mean the receivers of the science :)). I fought pseudo science. I tried to teach what I knew. I am not a specialist in climate and my understanding is a bit above your "this is very simple" part (I would add the physics and the complexity of simulations in the "I get that" part). But I am not equipped to evangelize the topic. And I see that other are not either because I did not hear about it eanough so that it is obvious fore everyone listening.

jfengel 6y ago
I just handed you the ELI5 version. Would you have been any happier if I had said nothing more than my second paragraph? I can go out and find somebody else saying the same thing, if that would help. But I'm trying to locate the source of the issue here. I gave you the thing you wanted and you don't appear to have acknowledge its existence. So I'm trying to figure out the actual issue here.
- BrandoElFollito 6y ago
  > gave you the thing you wanted and you don't appear to have acknowledge its existence. So I'm trying to figure out the actual issue here. The actual issue is not of ME not knowing (my question was intended to provide the "typical person not interested" perspective but apparently I failed to do that). As I said, I do know what global warming is. The issue is that people are stuck between some who will say "look outside, it is -5°C, let's laugh about global warming", some that will say "you should just make an effort and learn", and the ones who will say "the conjecture is that the Navier-Stokes equations shows that laminar wagoo wareeh mawawaw". I do not see the ELI5 version being broadcasted and pushed with a shovel into people's head. In which case the "look outside..." wins.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    It exists in plenty of places. The problem is that it's buried under denialist crap, and refutations of denialist crap. We should be teaching it in schools. When you try, the denialists demand equal time. In exactly the same way that the creationists demand equal time, because it's exactly the same people. I cannot win on this. I've simply accepted the loss. I get through my life by not talking to conspiracy theorists: birthers, 9/11 truthers, moon landing deniers, creationists, Republicans, etc. They are a tarpit that, once you touch it, you will never be free from. I am aware that not talking to them doesn't fix the problem, but since I'm certain that talking to them doesn't fix the problem either, I accept that I have failed and try to make my life as comfortable as it can be under the circumstances.
    - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
      I have too much of latin character to stop. We do not have creationists in France the same way as in the US - schools are teaching evolution and everyone is happy but even this is changing a bit. The recent events on critique of religions (and the death of a teacher - Samuel Paty) is a signal.
    - nonameiguess 6y ago
      For what it's worth, as a kid in late 1980s California public schools, I do remember learning about the basics of the Greenhouse effect and why it would likely become a problem in our lifetimes, sometime between 4th and 6th grades, I think. This was in the era of Deukmejian and Wilson as governors, when California was still run by Republicans. I have no idea if that still gets taught, or how much of an effect it had on the late Gen X/early Millennial generations to be taught this (assuming it wasn't just California), but I feel like it did have an impact at least on me. As you say, the physics is extremely simple and straightforward to the point you can explain it to a 10 year-old and they'll understand it. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. Beyond that, you can look at a very simple plot of average global temperature and see it rising almost in lockstep with anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The fact that there are often local abnormally cold winter events in specific places doesn't change that the global averages are still rising. I'm not really sure what to say beyond that. I could see some plausible case being made through the 70s and 80s that we were just coming out of the post-medieval Little Ice Age, but the trend has only accelerated since then and we are way past the hottest it has been since the Holocene and thus the dawn of agriculture. I still see a few David Friedman types out there trying to argue we can't know for certain if it won't be a net positive as places like Siberia become arable land in the coming centuries (he'll definitely never know since he's almost 80), but to deny that warming is happening beyond what might be expected from purely cyclical natural phenomena at this point is willful ignorance. Even the actual oil companies don't try to make this argument any more. It's pure culture war, reflexive rejection of any piece of information, no matter whether it is fact or opinion, based on its having been associated at some point with some conception of an academic "left."
neaden 6y ago
It's interesting that you use cigarettes as an example of something there is consensus on, because for years the tobacco companies denied the health effects using the exact same techniques that the oil companies now use with global warming. The reason it seems so clear now is because the government and courts finally took a stance on this issue.
- BrandoElFollito 6y ago
  Absolutely, and sugar companies as well (they lobbied to tag fat as bad, instead of sugar)
creaturemachine 6y ago
If you could find an xkcd that sums up your position that would be great.

jfengel 6y ago

I just handed you the ELI5 version. Would you have been any happier if I had said nothing more than my second paragraph? I can go out and find somebody else saying the same thing, if that would help. But I'm trying to locate the source of the issue here. I gave you the thing you wanted and you don't appear to have acknowledge its existence. So I'm trying to figure out the actual issue here.

BrandoElFollito 6y ago
> gave you the thing you wanted and you don't appear to have acknowledge its existence. So I'm trying to figure out the actual issue here. The actual issue is not of ME not knowing (my question was intended to provide the "typical person not interested" perspective but apparently I failed to do that). As I said, I do know what global warming is. The issue is that people are stuck between some who will say "look outside, it is -5°C, let's laugh about global warming", some that will say "you should just make an effort and learn", and the ones who will say "the conjecture is that the Navier-Stokes equations shows that laminar wagoo wareeh mawawaw". I do not see the ELI5 version being broadcasted and pushed with a shovel into people's head. In which case the "look outside..." wins.
- jfengel 6y ago
  It exists in plenty of places. The problem is that it's buried under denialist crap, and refutations of denialist crap. We should be teaching it in schools. When you try, the denialists demand equal time. In exactly the same way that the creationists demand equal time, because it's exactly the same people. I cannot win on this. I've simply accepted the loss. I get through my life by not talking to conspiracy theorists: birthers, 9/11 truthers, moon landing deniers, creationists, Republicans, etc. They are a tarpit that, once you touch it, you will never be free from. I am aware that not talking to them doesn't fix the problem, but since I'm certain that talking to them doesn't fix the problem either, I accept that I have failed and try to make my life as comfortable as it can be under the circumstances.
  - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
    I have too much of latin character to stop. We do not have creationists in France the same way as in the US - schools are teaching evolution and everyone is happy but even this is changing a bit. The recent events on critique of religions (and the death of a teacher - Samuel Paty) is a signal.
  - nonameiguess 6y ago
    For what it's worth, as a kid in late 1980s California public schools, I do remember learning about the basics of the Greenhouse effect and why it would likely become a problem in our lifetimes, sometime between 4th and 6th grades, I think. This was in the era of Deukmejian and Wilson as governors, when California was still run by Republicans. I have no idea if that still gets taught, or how much of an effect it had on the late Gen X/early Millennial generations to be taught this (assuming it wasn't just California), but I feel like it did have an impact at least on me. As you say, the physics is extremely simple and straightforward to the point you can explain it to a 10 year-old and they'll understand it. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. Beyond that, you can look at a very simple plot of average global temperature and see it rising almost in lockstep with anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The fact that there are often local abnormally cold winter events in specific places doesn't change that the global averages are still rising. I'm not really sure what to say beyond that. I could see some plausible case being made through the 70s and 80s that we were just coming out of the post-medieval Little Ice Age, but the trend has only accelerated since then and we are way past the hottest it has been since the Holocene and thus the dawn of agriculture. I still see a few David Friedman types out there trying to argue we can't know for certain if it won't be a net positive as places like Siberia become arable land in the coming centuries (he'll definitely never know since he's almost 80), but to deny that warming is happening beyond what might be expected from purely cyclical natural phenomena at this point is willful ignorance. Even the actual oil companies don't try to make this argument any more. It's pure culture war, reflexive rejection of any piece of information, no matter whether it is fact or opinion, based on its having been associated at some point with some conception of an academic "left."

neaden 6y ago

It's interesting that you use cigarettes as an example of something there is consensus on, because for years the tobacco companies denied the health effects using the exact same techniques that the oil companies now use with global warming. The reason it seems so clear now is because the government and courts finally took a stance on this issue.

BrandoElFollito 6y ago
Absolutely, and sugar companies as well (they lobbied to tag fat as bad, instead of sugar)

creaturemachine 6y ago

If you could find an xkcd that sums up your position that would be great.