4 ms·

I'm alluding to the labels being used there, and how there is visible effort to reduce/collapse all opposition into these extreme views. I was being a little sa

by proc0 5y ago

I'm alluding to the labels being used there, and how there is visible effort to reduce/collapse all opposition into these extreme views. I was being a little satirical to illustrate that such labeling looks like a strategy to get political traction and get laws and mandates into effect. Mostly because it creates a sense of urgency, based on plausible catastrophic danger. Of course extreme views exist, and a lot of times it comes from the same political side, precisely because the other political side is pressing with the sense of urgency and tied together with a sense of action. The latter is where I think the control comes in. Personally, I think there is a lot of "middle ground" to explore. Those extreme views are probably wrong (granted, definitely wrong on the no-action side), however that middle ground is frowned upon in favor of either the extreme where we need to take action, or the other extreme where it's all nonsense.

wolverine876 5y ago
If you define the enduring scientific consensus on climate change, probably the most-researched question in history, as 'extreme', and if you give denialists false equivalency with it, then the middle ground is between them. The scientific consensus isn't extreme and there is no equivalency, in any serious examination, between evidence and baseless claims (and complaints of victimization). You can find plenty to debate within the science, by addressing the evidence. I note that none of the denialist arguments, including this one, discuss any evidence. Also, if we look for 'middle ground' by reflex, we reward people for taking more extreme positions: You say the Sun rises in the east, I say in the west; let's look for middle ground! Finally, this kind of rhetoric is often a way to distract people from the evidence and the real issues. > Of course extreme views exist, and a lot of times it comes from the same political side, precisely because the other political side is pressing with the sense of urgency They are victims. Even their own actions are blamed on the other side! They have no responsibility for their actions, their world, or the outcomes. That's up to the scientists and people doing honest work, I suppose. What happens when there is a catastrophe? Bad things happen. If you deny that reflexively, then you are going to have a lot of trouble. A lot of people have died of Covid.
- proc0 5y ago
  > You can find plenty to debate within the science, by addressing the evidence. I note that none of the denialist arguments, including this one, discuss any evidence. Right, but this is more of meta-conversation. I'm not going to go into the evidence here, we're a talking about the climate change conversation itself. I can assure there is evidence on both sides. The problem is that it quickly becomes an epistemological conversation on what constitutes as evidence. I can see good arguments on both sides, yet there is more political action on one side only with increasing pressure to control how entire populations should live their daily lives that seem to approach totalitarian levels. This of course benefits the ruling class, so it is no surprise those at the "bottom" push back against it. If instead we could see some leadership by example, I think Tesla has done well here, we could see less pushback. There's nothing wrong with green tech, but forcing it on society is dancing around the totalitarian utopia idea. > What happens when there is a catastrophe? Bad things happen. Yes, but the same corporations are not solving world hunger, yet are promoting a carbon tax and vaccines. More people die from hunger (almost 10M every year for decades) than covid as one example, even if we had done nothing about it. Glaciers haven't even melted yet, but obesity kills millions... at the same time hunger kills millions EVERY YEAR, yet climate change is a bigger problem... how does that make sense?
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Glaciers have melted, but regardless, the math seems straightforward: Climate change will cause orders of magnitude more damage than obesity. Also, we do invest in reducing obesity, hunger, malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, childhood death, etc. > good arguments on both sides, yet there is more political action on one side only with increasing pressure to control how entire populations should live their daily lives that seem to approach totalitarian levels. Only if we redefine "totalitarian". We have all sorts of laws that "control how entire populations should live" - they can't steal; they have to drive on the proper side of the road, not too fast, and stop in certain places; they can only put their trash out on certain days of the week. That's what every law is - we get together and agree on rules for everyone. This argument is typical of reactionary rhetoric - complete nonsense if you think for a moment, it's really about aggression to confound the 'enemy'. You've made your fellow citizens, other human beings, into enemies.
tsimionescu 5y ago
Is it extreme to claim that the Earth is round and orbits the sun? Does it hurt science ot laugh at flat earthers? According to your definitions, it is. Climate science and vaccination science are as settled as these. Anyone arguing against them is either deeply ignorant or arguing in bad faith, or both.
- proc0 5y ago
  The main difference is that one is a factual claim (which is also visible), while the other one is a complex prediction of the future. I could be mistaken and don't have sources (I'm sure easily searchable though), but I think the arctic glaciers should have already been melted by now, by some predictions. So some of the climate science has already made incorrect predictions, and I don't think it is 'settled'. Even if everyone agrees it is happening and how, the details are extremely important if we then want to extrapolate to political action. I still support renewables and businesses going green, but that could happen even if climate change isn't a looming threat because there are other benefits like having less pollution in cities, or preserving the natural habitats etc.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > a complex prediction of the future A lot of climate change has happened.
    - proc0 5y ago
      Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing the world ending, or sea levels rising and destroying cities. Sounds like it's not that catastrophic if it's already happening.

by proc0 5y ago

wolverine876 5y ago

If you define the enduring scientific consensus on climate change, probably the most-researched question in history, as 'extreme', and if you give denialists false equivalency with it, then the middle ground is between them. The scientific consensus isn't extreme and there is no equivalency, in any serious examination, between evidence and baseless claims (and complaints of victimization). You can find plenty to debate within the science, by addressing the evidence. I note that none of the denialist arguments, including this one, discuss any evidence. Also, if we look for 'middle ground' by reflex, we reward people for taking more extreme positions: You say the Sun rises in the east, I say in the west; let's look for middle ground! Finally, this kind of rhetoric is often a way to distract people from the evidence and the real issues. > Of course extreme views exist, and a lot of times it comes from the same political side, precisely because the other political side is pressing with the sense of urgency They are victims. Even their own actions are blamed on the other side! They have no responsibility for their actions, their world, or the outcomes. That's up to the scientists and people doing honest work, I suppose. What happens when there is a catastrophe? Bad things happen. If you deny that reflexively, then you are going to have a lot of trouble. A lot of people have died of Covid.

proc0 5y ago
> You can find plenty to debate within the science, by addressing the evidence. I note that none of the denialist arguments, including this one, discuss any evidence. Right, but this is more of meta-conversation. I'm not going to go into the evidence here, we're a talking about the climate change conversation itself. I can assure there is evidence on both sides. The problem is that it quickly becomes an epistemological conversation on what constitutes as evidence. I can see good arguments on both sides, yet there is more political action on one side only with increasing pressure to control how entire populations should live their daily lives that seem to approach totalitarian levels. This of course benefits the ruling class, so it is no surprise those at the "bottom" push back against it. If instead we could see some leadership by example, I think Tesla has done well here, we could see less pushback. There's nothing wrong with green tech, but forcing it on society is dancing around the totalitarian utopia idea. > What happens when there is a catastrophe? Bad things happen. Yes, but the same corporations are not solving world hunger, yet are promoting a carbon tax and vaccines. More people die from hunger (almost 10M every year for decades) than covid as one example, even if we had done nothing about it. Glaciers haven't even melted yet, but obesity kills millions... at the same time hunger kills millions EVERY YEAR, yet climate change is a bigger problem... how does that make sense?
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Glaciers have melted, but regardless, the math seems straightforward: Climate change will cause orders of magnitude more damage than obesity. Also, we do invest in reducing obesity, hunger, malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, childhood death, etc. > good arguments on both sides, yet there is more political action on one side only with increasing pressure to control how entire populations should live their daily lives that seem to approach totalitarian levels. Only if we redefine "totalitarian". We have all sorts of laws that "control how entire populations should live" - they can't steal; they have to drive on the proper side of the road, not too fast, and stop in certain places; they can only put their trash out on certain days of the week. That's what every law is - we get together and agree on rules for everyone. This argument is typical of reactionary rhetoric - complete nonsense if you think for a moment, it's really about aggression to confound the 'enemy'. You've made your fellow citizens, other human beings, into enemies.

tsimionescu 5y ago

Is it extreme to claim that the Earth is round and orbits the sun? Does it hurt science ot laugh at flat earthers? According to your definitions, it is. Climate science and vaccination science are as settled as these. Anyone arguing against them is either deeply ignorant or arguing in bad faith, or both.

proc0 5y ago
The main difference is that one is a factual claim (which is also visible), while the other one is a complex prediction of the future. I could be mistaken and don't have sources (I'm sure easily searchable though), but I think the arctic glaciers should have already been melted by now, by some predictions. So some of the climate science has already made incorrect predictions, and I don't think it is 'settled'. Even if everyone agrees it is happening and how, the details are extremely important if we then want to extrapolate to political action. I still support renewables and businesses going green, but that could happen even if climate change isn't a looming threat because there are other benefits like having less pollution in cities, or preserving the natural habitats etc.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > a complex prediction of the future A lot of climate change has happened.
  - proc0 5y ago
    Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing the world ending, or sea levels rising and destroying cities. Sounds like it's not that catastrophic if it's already happening.