4 ms·

The point is that warning about extreme weather events is the only narrative that got people to consider global warming a problem at all. A 2 degree change in

by d--b 5y ago

The point is that warning about extreme weather events is the only narrative that got people to consider global warming a problem at all. A 2 degree change in average temperature doesn’t change how people live. A heat wave does. Now I don’t know if it’s actually true or not but it feels like the frequency of extreme weather event has increased. It’s difficult to say because that’s something our grandparents already said 50 years ago. But then there are 2 possibilities: 1. Either the frequency of extreme events has actually increased and it would be hard not to pin it down on climate change (despite our inability to do it scientifically). 2. Or it hasn’t changed significantly (statistically speaking), and it’s all a bit of mass hysteria. Either way doesn’t actually matter. I personally don’t care if people are scared about the acidification of oceans or about rain for their next barbecue. As long as they vote for people who want to do something about it. I personally have been criticized by friends for saying that we don’t know what the impact of climate change is on the weather. I don’t care anymore. It’s all about narrative. That one works, let’s not poke holes in it. It only benefits people running polluting industries.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago
This attitude exemplifies the problem with the public discourse. The public discourse isn’t about finding out truth and forming actionable democratic consensus, it is about duping “stupid people” into supporting “good things”™.
- nefitty 5y ago
  By the time Machiavelli wrote The Prince, the very act of writing the book was a tracer round to rampant political cynicism. Once an attitude or ideology is the target of satire, it has already bcome interwoven into a society. I presume that to be even moreso in eras where publishing had high cost. There's also this naive commitment to truth. Yes, we want our mental models to be more accurate and predictive. What if a model results in an increase of net suffering? What is the role of a democratic government, to provide services to a society to lessen individual offering, or to pursue truth and align legislation at all costs?
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    The point of a democratic government is being ruled by demos, the people. You are describing a government run by benevolent elites. In such case of course the government may lie and deceive people, and even pretend that it is democratic, but it won’t be a democratic government. The naive commitment to truth is the most fundamental requirement for the most basic freedom, the freedom to reason. To lie, to deceive someone means to take away that freedom.
    - nefitty 5y ago
      That makes sense. I'm not sure why the right to reason didn't cross my mind. Maybe I presumed it in the scenario I pictured. I'm not convinced that governments should have mandates to pursue truth at all costs. I think the true danger is when there is little tension between government and the fourth estate. Government actions need interpretation and presentation, and when those functions lapse or are neglected, is when individuals begin losing the right to reason. To be able to make decisions presupposes that non-elites are presented with the decision in the first place. This is the context within which the naive commitment for truth is a virtue.
leetcrew 5y ago
> I personally have been criticized by friends for saying that we don’t know what the impact of climate change is on the weather. I don’t care anymore. It’s all about narrative. That one works, let’s not poke holes in it. It only benefits people running polluting industries. I get it. it's exhausting and usually pointless to make these sorts of arguments. I think it's fine to give up after a while, at least with certain people. every single issue can't be our hill to die on. but this goes further than acceptance; we shouldn't go so far as to embrace obviously wrong narratives, however effective they may be in the moment. it really damages the trust we have in each other, which is already in short supply.
slibhb 5y ago
Narrative might win you an election or two but climate change is a long term issue with long term consequences. In the long term, telling the truth is the correct strategy.
soperj 5y ago
> It only benefits people running polluting industries. That's not true. It benefits anyone who can blame anything on climate change. For instance, decimation of fish stocks in the Pacific Northwest. Mostly due to dams and fish farming in the mouths of important rivers, and over fishing, but wild attributed to climate change. Massive forest fires in BC. Mostly due to forestry management practices where forests aren't allowed to burn, and any forests that do are quickly sprayed with Glyphosate so that Aspen don't grow (a natural firebreak species, but the lumber industry doesn't want it) and replanted with GMO pine. Monoculture forests have exacerbated Pine Beetle issues as well. Also largely attributed to climate change. You take a locally solvable problem, and make it so that you can do nothing about it and the money continues to flow right in.
- boppo1 5y ago
  I wish this point was more recognized.
perlgeek 5y ago
I'm pretty sure that insurance companies have hard empirical data on whether extreme weather has actually gotten more frequent.

by d--b 5y ago

LudwigNagasena 5y ago

This attitude exemplifies the problem with the public discourse. The public discourse isn’t about finding out truth and forming actionable democratic consensus, it is about duping “stupid people” into supporting “good things”™.

nefitty 5y ago
By the time Machiavelli wrote The Prince, the very act of writing the book was a tracer round to rampant political cynicism. Once an attitude or ideology is the target of satire, it has already bcome interwoven into a society. I presume that to be even moreso in eras where publishing had high cost. There's also this naive commitment to truth. Yes, we want our mental models to be more accurate and predictive. What if a model results in an increase of net suffering? What is the role of a democratic government, to provide services to a society to lessen individual offering, or to pursue truth and align legislation at all costs?
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  The point of a democratic government is being ruled by demos, the people. You are describing a government run by benevolent elites. In such case of course the government may lie and deceive people, and even pretend that it is democratic, but it won’t be a democratic government. The naive commitment to truth is the most fundamental requirement for the most basic freedom, the freedom to reason. To lie, to deceive someone means to take away that freedom.
  - nefitty 5y ago
    That makes sense. I'm not sure why the right to reason didn't cross my mind. Maybe I presumed it in the scenario I pictured. I'm not convinced that governments should have mandates to pursue truth at all costs. I think the true danger is when there is little tension between government and the fourth estate. Government actions need interpretation and presentation, and when those functions lapse or are neglected, is when individuals begin losing the right to reason. To be able to make decisions presupposes that non-elites are presented with the decision in the first place. This is the context within which the naive commitment for truth is a virtue.

leetcrew 5y ago

> I personally have been criticized by friends for saying that we don’t know what the impact of climate change is on the weather. I don’t care anymore. It’s all about narrative. That one works, let’s not poke holes in it. It only benefits people running polluting industries. I get it. it's exhausting and usually pointless to make these sorts of arguments. I think it's fine to give up after a while, at least with certain people. every single issue can't be our hill to die on. but this goes further than acceptance; we shouldn't go so far as to embrace obviously wrong narratives, however effective they may be in the moment. it really damages the trust we have in each other, which is already in short supply.

slibhb 5y ago

Narrative might win you an election or two but climate change is a long term issue with long term consequences. In the long term, telling the truth is the correct strategy.

soperj 5y ago

> It only benefits people running polluting industries. That's not true. It benefits anyone who can blame anything on climate change. For instance, decimation of fish stocks in the Pacific Northwest. Mostly due to dams and fish farming in the mouths of important rivers, and over fishing, but wild attributed to climate change. Massive forest fires in BC. Mostly due to forestry management practices where forests aren't allowed to burn, and any forests that do are quickly sprayed with Glyphosate so that Aspen don't grow (a natural firebreak species, but the lumber industry doesn't want it) and replanted with GMO pine. Monoculture forests have exacerbated Pine Beetle issues as well. Also largely attributed to climate change. You take a locally solvable problem, and make it so that you can do nothing about it and the money continues to flow right in.

boppo1 5y ago
I wish this point was more recognized.

perlgeek 5y ago

I'm pretty sure that insurance companies have hard empirical data on whether extreme weather has actually gotten more frequent.