3 ms·

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

• 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.
  • imoverclocked 5y ago
    I think all three of us see this in hindsight. Ultimately, Exxon influenced politics to keep its business model. Politicians then amplified pieces of rhetoric (eg: the piece I pointed out) for their own gain. I would bet that very few people (especially the general public) read that original report in its entirety. What's more important to me personally in this thread is not “a single person was not always thinking the correct things” but rather, “what lead them to think things counter to established/semi-established science?” All of us are prone to misinformation. By understanding biases we can potentially improve ourselves. I tend to hold the same thumb-in-the-air view that anytime we think we absolutely know something is true, we are probably missing something fundamental. This is just another way of saying that reality (especially political reality) is almost always more nuanced than “x is good” or “y is bad.” Finally, the human condition is quite messy. We all operate on partial knowledge of the world. There is no way for any of us to spend enough time+energy to really focus on or even fully grasp all the large and simultaneous issues in the world. It’s why we have organizations that go out and try to boil the problems down for us based on interviews and primary sources. Various governments also have these same kinds of organizations that operate independently and are tailored to help make policy decisions. My point: it’s possible to quickly analyze our limited sources of information and come to wrong conclusions. api openly accepts that his conclusion changed and speaks about where he thinks he went wrong. In this light, down voting based on his internal experience seems… odd.
    • bena 5y ago
      To keep it short, people think he's lying about where he says he went wrong. Because his reasons aren't internally consistent. He either used a piece information to justify his already held stance. "I don't believe in climate change. This politician says it. Politicians lie. I can continue not believing in it." Or he allowed certain affiliations of his to dictate which groups he should dismiss despite any actual evidence. "I work in oil and gas/I am a Republican. This would be bad for my industry/Democrats are mostly in support. I shouldn't support it." Neither of those are good processes. And no one wants to admit to either of them because they are bad. So if something like the above is the reason, it's best to try and claim another. But enough people are savvy enough to put two and two together.