6 ms·

> What if climate change was perpetuated by giant sloths who want to drive humans to extinction? Then we should question the assertion & by directly seeing gia

> What if climate change was perpetuated by giant sloths who want to drive humans to extinction? Then we should question the assertion & by directly seeing giant sloths, one can know that giant sloths are indeed destroying the climate. However, we don't have any direct evidence that humans are causing the climate to change. We have direct evidence that solar cycles, geomagnetic field effects, & the general naturally occurring cycles do affect the climate directly, and always have throughout Earth's history. Instead, we have institutional funding directly incentivizing an opinion, which is "humans are the primary driver in climate change". If many scientists don't have that opinion, those scientists don't have a career. We can use Bayesian inference to understand that the climates in other planets in the Solar System is also changing. Given that humans, to my knowledge, do not populate other planets in the Solar System, that makes the probability of natural cycles are the primary driver of climate change quite high. Given the potential & historically validated risk of tyrannical governments & class warfare causing genocide & mass effects on the broader population, hanging our hat on the small chance that the same people who lie all the time are now telling the truth in this one case, despite their contradictory actions, seems like an irrational choice. I know that there's many people who want us all to just follow the self-imposed authority figures because they benefit from that arrangement, but that can become an epistemological bias in it's own right. Likewise, this comment above adds very little to the discussion, because it seeks to distract from the central point, which is about people of power & wealth using lies, fear-mongering, shaming, & pseudo-intellectual arguments to gain even more power over everybody else. > Can easily extend to individual consumers under a completely free-market solution. Can also easily extend to the institutions directly responsible for the social conditions, such as the military, banking establishment, political figures, bureaucrats, technocrats, etc. The increasing consumptive behavior of these classes of people directly contradicts the "crisis" we are all facing. If the people in power who caused these problems really are concerned about the "crisis", they should give up ALL of their power over others so the broader spirit of humanity can solve the problems that they have caused. And my offer still stands. Give me Trillions of dollars of wealth & liquid cash and I will gladly save you from the problems that I say you created. I'll even include some statistics & Science in that package deal!

bumby 5y ago
Which do you think we have more robust data about, Earth or other planets in the solar system? The amount of data has a large impact on Bayesian inference… What, in your opinion, would be the correct way to measure direct human impact on climate? Until very recently, we didn’t have direct measurement of the Higgs particle and yet we were able to do wonderful things inferring the strength of gravity by other means. Point being, I’m not yet convinced your bar for knowledge is appropriate. And my comment is not meant to distract from your point about central government but rather to question the strength of the basis of the claim. On the contrary, I felt your comment was a classic misinformation tactic but I was trying to employ the tack that every downvote deserves a response
- briantakita 5y ago
  > Which do you think we have more robust data about, Earth or other planets in the solar system? The amount of data has a large impact on Bayesian inference… This is not a question of robustness of data. This is a question of commonalities. If there is significant climate change occurring on other planets, one can infer that there are influences outside of the planet. > What, in your opinion, would be the correct way to measure direct human impact on climate? Well, we can measure water pollution due to run-offs of industrial waste. These measures are well established, obvious, & there is a history of direct evidence & scientific consensus that mercury and pesticide run-off causes problems to the ecosystem & human health. CO2 in the atmosphere & it's direct effects, not so much. There has been plenty of credible scientific opposition. The problem is there is too much money riding on the opinion that CO2 is the #1 existential problem facing humanity so the credible voices in opposition are drowned out on an institutional level. > we didn’t have direct measurement of the Higgs particle and yet we were able to do wonderful things inferring the strength of gravity by other means What makes you so sure that physical reality is composed of particles. This is an atomist bias. Fields are another way of looking at physical reality. For example, our electrical equations are based on fields & can be applied to unify different phenomona. > being, I’m not yet convinced your bar for knowledge is appropriate. If I had $Trillions of wealth, I could easily hire people & even peer groups who have a reasonable "bar of knowledge" & incentivize them to have the "appropriate" opinion; meanwhile push out the non-believers, I mean those who have the "inappropriate" opinion, from key roles while filling those roles with people of "appropriate" opinion. In the meantime, a series of propaganda, I mean PR, campaigns through the various organs that $Trillions could influence would convince you to think "appropriately" as well. My offer still stands... > And my comment is not meant to distract from your point about central government but rather to question the strength of the basis of the claim. On the contrary, I felt your comment was a classic misinformation tactic but I was trying to employ the tack that every downvote deserves a response According to your view, which is biased, any opposition & questioning of Epistemology is considered "misinformation". Yes, do not think outside the narrow confines of your worldview, or it's "misinformation". I bet if you took my offer, gave me $Trillions, you would not think what I say is "misinformation" within at most a couple of years. But. Just. Tax. It. Very credible. Begging the question is "not appropriate", only the tax money is flowing my way...

bumby 5y ago

Which do you think we have more robust data about, Earth or other planets in the solar system? The amount of data has a large impact on Bayesian inference… What, in your opinion, would be the correct way to measure direct human impact on climate? Until very recently, we didn’t have direct measurement of the Higgs particle and yet we were able to do wonderful things inferring the strength of gravity by other means. Point being, I’m not yet convinced your bar for knowledge is appropriate. And my comment is not meant to distract from your point about central government but rather to question the strength of the basis of the claim. On the contrary, I felt your comment was a classic misinformation tactic but I was trying to employ the tack that every downvote deserves a response

briantakita 5y ago
> Which do you think we have more robust data about, Earth or other planets in the solar system? The amount of data has a large impact on Bayesian inference… This is not a question of robustness of data. This is a question of commonalities. If there is significant climate change occurring on other planets, one can infer that there are influences outside of the planet. > What, in your opinion, would be the correct way to measure direct human impact on climate? Well, we can measure water pollution due to run-offs of industrial waste. These measures are well established, obvious, & there is a history of direct evidence & scientific consensus that mercury and pesticide run-off causes problems to the ecosystem & human health. CO2 in the atmosphere & it's direct effects, not so much. There has been plenty of credible scientific opposition. The problem is there is too much money riding on the opinion that CO2 is the #1 existential problem facing humanity so the credible voices in opposition are drowned out on an institutional level. > we didn’t have direct measurement of the Higgs particle and yet we were able to do wonderful things inferring the strength of gravity by other means What makes you so sure that physical reality is composed of particles. This is an atomist bias. Fields are another way of looking at physical reality. For example, our electrical equations are based on fields & can be applied to unify different phenomona. > being, I’m not yet convinced your bar for knowledge is appropriate. If I had $Trillions of wealth, I could easily hire people & even peer groups who have a reasonable "bar of knowledge" & incentivize them to have the "appropriate" opinion; meanwhile push out the non-believers, I mean those who have the "inappropriate" opinion, from key roles while filling those roles with people of "appropriate" opinion. In the meantime, a series of propaganda, I mean PR, campaigns through the various organs that $Trillions could influence would convince you to think "appropriately" as well. My offer still stands... > And my comment is not meant to distract from your point about central government but rather to question the strength of the basis of the claim. On the contrary, I felt your comment was a classic misinformation tactic but I was trying to employ the tack that every downvote deserves a response According to your view, which is biased, any opposition & questioning of Epistemology is considered "misinformation". Yes, do not think outside the narrow confines of your worldview, or it's "misinformation". I bet if you took my offer, gave me $Trillions, you would not think what I say is "misinformation" within at most a couple of years. But. Just. Tax. It. Very credible. Begging the question is "not appropriate", only the tax money is flowing my way...