3 ms·
I'm not an expert in climate change, but I read a lot of science paper (mostly cryptography and behavior science) and I understand how science works. I understa
by Comevius 4y ago
I'm not an expert in climate change, but I read a lot of science paper (mostly cryptography and behavior science) and I understand how science works. I understand it's process, it's limitations. I also see the writing on the wall. I don't like it, I'm not enthusiastic about it, I don't place blind trust in it. It's there, whether I like it or not. There are a lot of uncertainties about the details, but the big picture is clear.
Alex Epstein is a propagandist. His only activity is casting doubt, scepticism. He is being paid by companies trying to control the narrative, because their bottom line depends on freely polluting the planet, without consequences. He is a puppet so that powerful people can fill their pockets, while accussing everyone else of the same. He literally doesn't care about the facts, and you are not supposed to poke holes in his theories. He is there to muddy the waters to absolve people from consequences.
These people only care about themselves. People often fall for their shtick for emotional reasons. Some people are more sensitive to uncertainty and fear, so they latch into beliefs and views that reintroduce certainty as a defense mechanism. The propagandists take advantage of this by first creating uncertainty (making it harder to know what's real, who you can trust) and then offering a way out.
I'm not offering a way out. There is no obvious solution. I'm not selling anything to you.
- systemvoltage 4y agoI agree with you about the first paragraph. Do you think we need more Climate skeptics especially when there is a severe lack of them, and when there is an excessive dogmatism – i.e., you cannot challenge the status quo with the best of intentions and using the same materials/sources, there is a cultural pressure to conform and there is a dire need for strong arming climate catastrophy and apocolyptic motifs? I hope we can find common ground that when there is 100% dogmatism and 0% skepticism, it is not science anymore. It is like the medieval church. I take this further in my personal life without engaging in conspiracies and bad faith. Whenever there is an immense social pressure to conform to anything, let alone science, I get increasingly skeptic. There is a wisdom of crowds when a healthy amount skepticism is allowed. There is a madness of crowds when very little skepticism is allowed.
- Comevius 4y agoScience is models of reality. As we gain more understanding we increase the precision of our models. When we do the previous models don't become invalid, like Newton's laws of motions are not invalid because of quantum physics, indeed they are considered an approximation to it. The same goes for climate science, our models are increasing in precision. The social pressure is however in the opposite direction than you think. Nobody wants to be seen as crazy, and there is a pressure from the institutions to tone it down. Often the most conservative models are presented as plausible, selected by how actionable they are. Even the plausible models are unpleasant, not because scientists are crazy, but because the situation is that bad, and potentially much worst. Whether it's fixable, or can only be mitigated, or we can only try to adapt, it doesn't matter because we are not doing any of it. We are banking in everything turning out just fine, even if we continue pumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere indiscriminately. This behavior is a suicidal one. What social pressure would exist to deal with the problem head-on anyway, we don't work like that. The real power is not being dogmatically sceptical, it's evaluation. Thinking about things and their relationships. There is a difference between poking holes, and throwing the whole tapestry away for the sake of being sceptical.
- systemvoltage 4y agoThanks for a good discussion.