7 ms·

I'm not sure why you are being down-voted for voicing your position. Thanks for sharing it. I think that if we (as a society) can't find a way to communicate b

I'm not sure why you are being down-voted for voicing your position. Thanks for sharing it. I think that if we (as a society) can't find a way to communicate basic truths to all of us, we are probably doomed; There has to be a way for everyone to be able to say "1 + 1 = 2" and not have endless debate about it. Trusting the leaders that we elect is probably part of that equation... but that also means those leaders need to understand these basic truths (as truths) as well.

User23 5y ago
> I'm not sure why you are being down-voted for voicing your position. The climate zealots here are extremely aggressive with the downvoting. And yes the description zealot is fair. Denier is their word for heretic. Another sign of zealotry is the inability to recognize nuance. For example my pointing out that climate zealots act like zealots is observably true, but their brains will shut down and immediately label me as a “denier” even though I’m entirely agnostic on the subject. I really don’t care. I have better things to spend my intellectual energy on than learning enough to evaluate whatever evidence there is for a problem I can’t solve. But there’s no greater offense to a zealot than saying you consider his particular obsession irrelevant. Yet another sign of zealotry is an extreme desire for others to publicly affirm one’s beliefs. This should help you understand why gp is poorly received. Edit: As for why I bothered to post about zealots, it’s because I believe zealotry of all sorts, including climate zealotry, is far more likely to cause mass harm than whatever issue the zealots are obsessed with. For example climate zealots are actually seriously planning to blot out the sun. What could possibly go wrong?
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > For example my pointing out that climate zealots act like zealots is observably true That's a tautology. Perhaps you could explain who exactly is a 'climate zealot', and why, without just painting everyone who doesn't agree with you as one.
  - User23 5y ago
    First, “observably” means I was making an empirical claim. The basis may be tautological which is to say logically sound, but the key point is that I and others have observed zealotry. Second, persons who are climate zealots are the ones who act like zealots about climate, rather than pornography or any other number of hobbyhorses that zealots obsess over. I think it’s fair to assume most everyone reading this is educated and experienced enough to know what a zealot is. It’s not up to me who is or isn’t a climate zealot, the class is duck typed. So much for that. Third, I’m not painting people who disagree with me as anything, because there aren’t any people who disagree with me. How exactly does one disagree with someone who has no belief to disagree with? Edit: Thank you zealots for proving my point.
    - bena 5y ago
      His point is that saying "zealots are zealots" doesn't say anything. Or the people who are zealots are those acting like zealots. Once again, that's tautology. He's asking you what actions are those of a zealot. If I recycle, am I zealot? If I say global warming is real, am I zealot? If I sabotage a petroleum refinery, am I zealot? There are degrees to actions. He knows what he'd define a zealot as, but he wants you to define what it means to you. But you want to dodge the question by saying "it's obvious". You've also defined anyone downvoting him or you as zealots. But. You could be wrong. I mean, your logic is bad, which is a good reason to downvote you in general. They're not disagreeing with your self-professed non-position on climate change. They're disagreeing with your refusal to engage with others in good faith.
      - User23 5y ago
        > Once again, that's tautology. He's asking you what actions are those of a zealot. If I recycle, am I zealot? If I say global warming is real, am I zealot? If I sabotage a petroleum refinery, am I zealot? There are degrees to actions All three of those are entirely orthogonal to whether or not one is a zealot. For example someone could sabotage a petroleum refinery because they’re following military orders without any particular obsession with petroleum. And someone could be a zealot about recycling by being obsessed with it and calling people who think recycling is a waste because China isn’t taking it anymore “wasters” or some other pejorative label and insisting everyone else take recycling as seriously as they do. Perhaps you’ll find looking up “zeal” in your favorite dictionary helpful for understanding what zealotry us. > I mean, your logic is bad I’m fairly confident in “A is A” having pragmatic value and uninterested in a model that doesn’t accept that axiom. The correctness of my logic isn’t harmed by assuming my interlocutors can recognize zealotry. > You've also defined anyone downvoting him or you as zealots. Now here is an actual logical error: confusing the implication and the consequence or confusing either or both with the equivalence. Observing that zealots will downvote does not mean that all those who downvote are zealots. Edit: One reliable indicator of a zealot downvote is that other completely unrelated comments from the objectionable author that are still eligible for downvotes will get downvoted at the same time, which I’ve observed in this instance.
mistermann 5y ago
Here's what I think is just one interesting way to think about it: what if our current forms of government, combined with all other variables in the system that we find ourselves within, are simply insufficient to reach an adequate response to this issue? Or worse: maybe government is just one of many components that are not up to the task. And if you feel the urge to say something like "No, that's not it", then I would ask: "How do you know?", or "What if we manage to somehow decide and unify on a plan, but the plan is inadequate?" Whether people like it or not, solving this requires a series of actions that are actually adequate to solve the problem. We all seem to have no problem realizing this at our day jobs, but it seems to me there is something about this problem that downgrades people's ability to execute logic at a high level of comppetency. Perhaps it's that the system is infinitely complex, but it does not appear this way?
bena 5y ago
I think it's because people are skeptical of the source of his skepticism. They believe he is being disingenuous and trying to couch his position in something that will excuse his behavior. They're also pointing out the core inconsistency in his logic. He claims his basis for climate skepticism was that politicians said it and politicians lie. But others pointed out that there were always politicians on both sides of the issue. So if politicians lie and politicians are on both sides of the issue then we have a problem. We can't use politicians as a barometer of truth, either way. So either his reason for climate skepticism isn't "politicians said it" or his reason for climate skepticism is because "politicians who don't share a political party with me said it". And that's obviously bad. But he can't say that, because it's obviously bad.
- imoverclocked 5y ago
  I can't speak for api's intentions but I think the point is that scientists are people too. The perception of scientists themselves as being politically bent in one direction is definitely not unfathomable. This is especially so in a culture (or sub-culture) of politicians/news that may portray them that way for political gain. At the end of the day, we all have to decide what information sources we will put money behind. None of them are always correct. Science does have an upper hand when done right... but that's a large caveat that even seasoned scientists may not always discern properly. Also, there is a lot of bad science "out there" sometimes funded by competing interests. None of this is to say that I doubt climate change but certainly I don't buy wholesale into emerging ideas until they have been sussed out a bit. In 1995, the language was still: > Any human-induced effect on climate will be superimposed on the background "noise" of natural climate variability, which results both from internal fluctuations and from external causes such as solar variability or volcanic eruptions. Detection and attribution studies attempt to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural influences. [1] Which could be (and was, when politically beneficial) read to mean "we don't have a clear picture." [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_...
  - bena 5y ago
    But he originally assigned his viewpoint to politicians and when people pointed out the flaw in his reasoning, he shifted. But once again, his reasoning is suspect. He claims scientists are of a certain political bent. His reason for believing they are of a political bent is the alarm they are raising over climate. Which he doesn't trust because of some politicians making an issue of it. Don't you see how that's circular? He can't use scientists claim of climate change as evidence of their political bent and then use a perceived political bent as to why he shouldn't trust their judgment on climate. If you wanted to do read in that way, that's a thing, but they also say in their introduction to "Advancing Our Understanding": > Global climate change moved to the forefront of the international agenda even before the recent growing confidence that a significant part of the observed global climate change can be attributed to human activities. Governments have agreed on the Climate Convention owing to the plausibility of the scientific arguments and measurements showing significant increases in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Global climate models have been used to project how the climate might change, based on plausible scenarios of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases through the next century. Which is an acknowledgement that it is happening. And let's not forget Exxon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...). Who accepted it as fact in the 80s and then actively worked to delay acceptance of it. So you have to see why it would be difficult to get people fully on board when you have a billion dollar corporation working against you. I mean, api wants to bemoan those darn lying politicians, but Exxon has a very obvious and vested interest in fossil fuel consumption and anything that would cause people to cut back is something they would have motive to fight. But he doesn't mention any oil or gas company at all, does he? For some reason, their objection to climate change doesn't raise one red flag for him at all.

User23 5y ago

> I'm not sure why you are being down-voted for voicing your position. The climate zealots here are extremely aggressive with the downvoting. And yes the description zealot is fair. Denier is their word for heretic. Another sign of zealotry is the inability to recognize nuance. For example my pointing out that climate zealots act like zealots is observably true, but their brains will shut down and immediately label me as a “denier” even though I’m entirely agnostic on the subject. I really don’t care. I have better things to spend my intellectual energy on than learning enough to evaluate whatever evidence there is for a problem I can’t solve. But there’s no greater offense to a zealot than saying you consider his particular obsession irrelevant. Yet another sign of zealotry is an extreme desire for others to publicly affirm one’s beliefs. This should help you understand why gp is poorly received. Edit: As for why I bothered to post about zealots, it’s because I believe zealotry of all sorts, including climate zealotry, is far more likely to cause mass harm than whatever issue the zealots are obsessed with. For example climate zealots are actually seriously planning to blot out the sun. What could possibly go wrong?

rootusrootus 5y ago
> For example my pointing out that climate zealots act like zealots is observably true That's a tautology. Perhaps you could explain who exactly is a 'climate zealot', and why, without just painting everyone who doesn't agree with you as one.
- User23 5y ago
  First, “observably” means I was making an empirical claim. The basis may be tautological which is to say logically sound, but the key point is that I and others have observed zealotry. Second, persons who are climate zealots are the ones who act like zealots about climate, rather than pornography or any other number of hobbyhorses that zealots obsess over. I think it’s fair to assume most everyone reading this is educated and experienced enough to know what a zealot is. It’s not up to me who is or isn’t a climate zealot, the class is duck typed. So much for that. Third, I’m not painting people who disagree with me as anything, because there aren’t any people who disagree with me. How exactly does one disagree with someone who has no belief to disagree with? Edit: Thank you zealots for proving my point.
  - bena 5y ago
    His point is that saying "zealots are zealots" doesn't say anything. Or the people who are zealots are those acting like zealots. Once again, that's tautology. He's asking you what actions are those of a zealot. If I recycle, am I zealot? If I say global warming is real, am I zealot? If I sabotage a petroleum refinery, am I zealot? There are degrees to actions. He knows what he'd define a zealot as, but he wants you to define what it means to you. But you want to dodge the question by saying "it's obvious". You've also defined anyone downvoting him or you as zealots. But. You could be wrong. I mean, your logic is bad, which is a good reason to downvote you in general. They're not disagreeing with your self-professed non-position on climate change. They're disagreeing with your refusal to engage with others in good faith.
    - User23 5y ago
      > Once again, that's tautology. He's asking you what actions are those of a zealot. If I recycle, am I zealot? If I say global warming is real, am I zealot? If I sabotage a petroleum refinery, am I zealot? There are degrees to actions All three of those are entirely orthogonal to whether or not one is a zealot. For example someone could sabotage a petroleum refinery because they’re following military orders without any particular obsession with petroleum. And someone could be a zealot about recycling by being obsessed with it and calling people who think recycling is a waste because China isn’t taking it anymore “wasters” or some other pejorative label and insisting everyone else take recycling as seriously as they do. Perhaps you’ll find looking up “zeal” in your favorite dictionary helpful for understanding what zealotry us. > I mean, your logic is bad I’m fairly confident in “A is A” having pragmatic value and uninterested in a model that doesn’t accept that axiom. The correctness of my logic isn’t harmed by assuming my interlocutors can recognize zealotry. > You've also defined anyone downvoting him or you as zealots. Now here is an actual logical error: confusing the implication and the consequence or confusing either or both with the equivalence. Observing that zealots will downvote does not mean that all those who downvote are zealots. Edit: One reliable indicator of a zealot downvote is that other completely unrelated comments from the objectionable author that are still eligible for downvotes will get downvoted at the same time, which I’ve observed in this instance.

mistermann 5y ago

Here's what I think is just one interesting way to think about it: what if our current forms of government, combined with all other variables in the system that we find ourselves within, are simply insufficient to reach an adequate response to this issue? Or worse: maybe government is just one of many components that are not up to the task. And if you feel the urge to say something like "No, that's not it", then I would ask: "How do you know?", or "What if we manage to somehow decide and unify on a plan, but the plan is inadequate?" Whether people like it or not, solving this requires a series of actions that are actually adequate to solve the problem. We all seem to have no problem realizing this at our day jobs, but it seems to me there is something about this problem that downgrades people's ability to execute logic at a high level of comppetency. Perhaps it's that the system is infinitely complex, but it does not appear this way?

bena 5y ago

I think it's because people are skeptical of the source of his skepticism. They believe he is being disingenuous and trying to couch his position in something that will excuse his behavior. They're also pointing out the core inconsistency in his logic. He claims his basis for climate skepticism was that politicians said it and politicians lie. But others pointed out that there were always politicians on both sides of the issue. So if politicians lie and politicians are on both sides of the issue then we have a problem. We can't use politicians as a barometer of truth, either way. So either his reason for climate skepticism isn't "politicians said it" or his reason for climate skepticism is because "politicians who don't share a political party with me said it". And that's obviously bad. But he can't say that, because it's obviously bad.

imoverclocked 5y ago
I can't speak for api's intentions but I think the point is that scientists are people too. The perception of scientists themselves as being politically bent in one direction is definitely not unfathomable. This is especially so in a culture (or sub-culture) of politicians/news that may portray them that way for political gain. At the end of the day, we all have to decide what information sources we will put money behind. None of them are always correct. Science does have an upper hand when done right... but that's a large caveat that even seasoned scientists may not always discern properly. Also, there is a lot of bad science "out there" sometimes funded by competing interests. None of this is to say that I doubt climate change but certainly I don't buy wholesale into emerging ideas until they have been sussed out a bit. In 1995, the language was still: > Any human-induced effect on climate will be superimposed on the background "noise" of natural climate variability, which results both from internal fluctuations and from external causes such as solar variability or volcanic eruptions. Detection and attribution studies attempt to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural influences. [1] Which could be (and was, when politically beneficial) read to mean "we don't have a clear picture." [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_...
- bena 5y ago
  But he originally assigned his viewpoint to politicians and when people pointed out the flaw in his reasoning, he shifted. But once again, his reasoning is suspect. He claims scientists are of a certain political bent. His reason for believing they are of a political bent is the alarm they are raising over climate. Which he doesn't trust because of some politicians making an issue of it. Don't you see how that's circular? He can't use scientists claim of climate change as evidence of their political bent and then use a perceived political bent as to why he shouldn't trust their judgment on climate. If you wanted to do read in that way, that's a thing, but they also say in their introduction to "Advancing Our Understanding": > Global climate change moved to the forefront of the international agenda even before the recent growing confidence that a significant part of the observed global climate change can be attributed to human activities. Governments have agreed on the Climate Convention owing to the plausibility of the scientific arguments and measurements showing significant increases in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Global climate models have been used to project how the climate might change, based on plausible scenarios of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases through the next century. Which is an acknowledgement that it is happening. And let's not forget Exxon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...). Who accepted it as fact in the 80s and then actively worked to delay acceptance of it. So you have to see why it would be difficult to get people fully on board when you have a billion dollar corporation working against you. I mean, api wants to bemoan those darn lying politicians, but Exxon has a very obvious and vested interest in fossil fuel consumption and anything that would cause people to cut back is something they would have motive to fight. But he doesn't mention any oil or gas company at all, does he? For some reason, their objection to climate change doesn't raise one red flag for him at all.