3 ms·

What's wild to me is how consistently science has chosen to be politically palatable rather than come off as "alarmist". Like in the original 1.5C report. We d

by culi 4y ago

What's wild to me is how consistently science has chosen to be politically palatable rather than come off as "alarmist". Like in the original 1.5C report. We didn't have good data on permafrost melting and how much methane that would release. Permafrost melting has been hypothesized as possibly one of the biggest contributors to a runaway effect. But they just straight up decided to ignore the entire effect That's just one of the many decisions made that makes the 1.5C report wildly more optimistic than reality. It's no wonder scientists like Lovelock who were very familiar with this research were some of the most likely to point out that science is a political institution with its own biases and incentives

svnt 4y ago
If the choice was to be invited to participate in the conversation or not, wouldn’t you tone down your public statements in order to have a hope of influencing policy? I’m not saying it’s the right strategy now, but premature hyperbole just slows down adoption, if it does anything at all.
- groby_b 4y ago
  The answer is "no". If the system refuses to face truth, you will need to circumvent the system. The opposite of that gives us institutions that are continually disseminating lies, in the process undermining trust in institutions. Truth doesn't get "invited to conversations". It is always part of it, and the choice is just spoken or unspoken.
  - anthony_d 4y ago
    > If the system refuses to face truth, you will need to circumvent the system. That is a terrifying sentence. It can be used to justify anything while denying accountability. There's always the possibility (probability) that you are wrong about what is "the truth."
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - culi 4y ago
      I completely agree with you but I don't really think it's relevant to this situation. The situation is not a decision between 2 different possible truths. It's a decision to sweep something under the rug. Something that we know will have an effect, we just don't know the magnitude of it. When faced with ambiguity we should take a best guess (even if it's a "conservative" guess) not ignore everything because its more politically convenient The "best guess" was clearly not taken here
    - carapace 4y ago
      Right, that's why empiricism and the scientific method are so important. This is in the context of scientists being "invited to participate in the conversation or not", eh?
    - groby_b 4y ago
      "face truth" is not exactly "anything". The desired outcome is - which is pretty damn obvious from the context here - that the system will need to face up to truth. And I'm certainly not sure how any of this denies accountability. Maybe you're just projecting a little bit much into a single sentence?
    - vkou 4y ago
      > That is a terrifying sentence It is. But so is the situation under discussion. When you have the choice between getting silenced for the truth, or keeping quiet about a disaster, the people putting you in this dilemma aren't doing so by using tools of reason or debate - but with tools of power and terror.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > If the choice was to be invited to participate in the conversation or not, wouldn’t you tone down your public statements in order to have a hope of influencing policy? An interesting bind is called "The Critics' Dilemma", best understood through a (Chinese) story. One day some farmers see an invading army coming over the hill. They rush into the city to tell the emperor. "Emperor, a huge army is approaching, we're surely doomed!" Not wanting to have the whole city panic the emperor has the men executed to silence them. Invaders enter the city and slaughter all the imperial soldiers. Many years later two farmers are watching the horizon when they see an army gathering. "Quickly, let's warn the citizens" says one. "No. Remember the story of what happened to our grandfathers." says the other. So they return to the city and tell the emperor, "We saw a few bandits gathered by the woods". The emperors soldiers go to confront them and are all killed, The city is raided again. The dilemma is "Tell them too much and they will deny you out of fear. Tell them too little and they will be unprepared." This applies, along with the Cassandra effect, right to the heart of all intelligent critique. People are happy to die from ignorance so long as you don't upset them with cognitive dissonance. Later, when they are in imminent peril, they'll blame you for not speaking up sooner.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    The story doesn't really make sense, wouldn't the more distant outposts easily confirm if a huge army is amassing nearby?
    - Mtinie 4y ago
      Not if the distant outposts have already succumbed to the advancing army…and all of those who came in from the field to warn the Emperor have previously been silenced.
    - DoughnutHole 4y ago
      It's a short parable, of course it doesn't stand up to pedantic nitpicking. The Boy Who Cried Wolf isn't a tightly tuned narrative either - why wouldn't they just put a more reliable shepherd boy out with the sheep after the first couple of lies? But that's hardly the point of a parable/fable.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  "Premature hyperbole"? Interesting choice of framing.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  > premature hyperbole just slows down adoption Wasn't it intentional euphemism in this case, however?
Manuel_D 4y ago
Assuming that permafrost is going not only be a major contributor to greenhouse gases, but also trigger a runaway reaction is the alarmism. They're not being politically palatable, they're making predictions based on the data that we have and being honest.
- culi 4y ago
  #1 The likely scenario we don't yet have evidence to make a strong claim about: it's a huge effect #2 The conservative position: it's going to have an effect #3 The radical position that goes completely against any existing science: it won't have any effect Why choose #3?
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    There's an asteroid headed for earth. It's going to kill us all. We need to drop everything, including our effort on climate change, to redirect it. I can't actually find the asteroid, but should we still follow through with my demands?
    - culi 4y ago
      Do you understand how the example you just gave is exactly the opposite of the actual scenario I tried to paint. My ENTIRE point is that it's a continuum. It's not a binary thing. The point is that there's gonna be an impact and it's gonna be somewhere between 2.35 and 6.25 of impact on some arbitrary scale I just made up. Why would we act as if it's 0 when we could at LEAST act as if it's 2.35?? Your scenario is exactly the opposite of this and a really unhelpful metaphor
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        Where does the lower bound of 2.35 come from? When you state this lower bound you are saying that we know with certainty that at least this much impact will happen. We lack that data so there's no lower bound, or rather the lower bound is zero. You could falsely claim a lower bound, but that erodes the credibility of the environmental movement.

by culi 4y ago

svnt 4y ago

If the choice was to be invited to participate in the conversation or not, wouldn’t you tone down your public statements in order to have a hope of influencing policy? I’m not saying it’s the right strategy now, but premature hyperbole just slows down adoption, if it does anything at all.

groby_b 4y ago
The answer is "no". If the system refuses to face truth, you will need to circumvent the system. The opposite of that gives us institutions that are continually disseminating lies, in the process undermining trust in institutions. Truth doesn't get "invited to conversations". It is always part of it, and the choice is just spoken or unspoken.
- anthony_d 4y ago
  > If the system refuses to face truth, you will need to circumvent the system. That is a terrifying sentence. It can be used to justify anything while denying accountability. There's always the possibility (probability) that you are wrong about what is "the truth."
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - culi 4y ago
    I completely agree with you but I don't really think it's relevant to this situation. The situation is not a decision between 2 different possible truths. It's a decision to sweep something under the rug. Something that we know will have an effect, we just don't know the magnitude of it. When faced with ambiguity we should take a best guess (even if it's a "conservative" guess) not ignore everything because its more politically convenient The "best guess" was clearly not taken here
  - carapace 4y ago
    Right, that's why empiricism and the scientific method are so important. This is in the context of scientists being "invited to participate in the conversation or not", eh?
  - groby_b 4y ago
    "face truth" is not exactly "anything". The desired outcome is - which is pretty damn obvious from the context here - that the system will need to face up to truth. And I'm certainly not sure how any of this denies accountability. Maybe you're just projecting a little bit much into a single sentence?
  - vkou 4y ago
    > That is a terrifying sentence It is. But so is the situation under discussion. When you have the choice between getting silenced for the truth, or keeping quiet about a disaster, the people putting you in this dilemma aren't doing so by using tools of reason or debate - but with tools of power and terror.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
> If the choice was to be invited to participate in the conversation or not, wouldn’t you tone down your public statements in order to have a hope of influencing policy? An interesting bind is called "The Critics' Dilemma", best understood through a (Chinese) story. One day some farmers see an invading army coming over the hill. They rush into the city to tell the emperor. "Emperor, a huge army is approaching, we're surely doomed!" Not wanting to have the whole city panic the emperor has the men executed to silence them. Invaders enter the city and slaughter all the imperial soldiers. Many years later two farmers are watching the horizon when they see an army gathering. "Quickly, let's warn the citizens" says one. "No. Remember the story of what happened to our grandfathers." says the other. So they return to the city and tell the emperor, "We saw a few bandits gathered by the woods". The emperors soldiers go to confront them and are all killed, The city is raided again. The dilemma is "Tell them too much and they will deny you out of fear. Tell them too little and they will be unprepared." This applies, along with the Cassandra effect, right to the heart of all intelligent critique. People are happy to die from ignorance so long as you don't upset them with cognitive dissonance. Later, when they are in imminent peril, they'll blame you for not speaking up sooner.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  The story doesn't really make sense, wouldn't the more distant outposts easily confirm if a huge army is amassing nearby?
  - Mtinie 4y ago
    Not if the distant outposts have already succumbed to the advancing army…and all of those who came in from the field to warn the Emperor have previously been silenced.
  - DoughnutHole 4y ago
    It's a short parable, of course it doesn't stand up to pedantic nitpicking. The Boy Who Cried Wolf isn't a tightly tuned narrative either - why wouldn't they just put a more reliable shepherd boy out with the sheep after the first couple of lies? But that's hardly the point of a parable/fable.
miguelazo 4y ago
"Premature hyperbole"? Interesting choice of framing.
andsoitis 4y ago
> premature hyperbole just slows down adoption Wasn't it intentional euphemism in this case, however?

Manuel_D 4y ago

Assuming that permafrost is going not only be a major contributor to greenhouse gases, but also trigger a runaway reaction is the alarmism. They're not being politically palatable, they're making predictions based on the data that we have and being honest.

culi 4y ago
#1 The likely scenario we don't yet have evidence to make a strong claim about: it's a huge effect #2 The conservative position: it's going to have an effect #3 The radical position that goes completely against any existing science: it won't have any effect Why choose #3?
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  There's an asteroid headed for earth. It's going to kill us all. We need to drop everything, including our effort on climate change, to redirect it. I can't actually find the asteroid, but should we still follow through with my demands?
  - culi 4y ago
    Do you understand how the example you just gave is exactly the opposite of the actual scenario I tried to paint. My ENTIRE point is that it's a continuum. It's not a binary thing. The point is that there's gonna be an impact and it's gonna be somewhere between 2.35 and 6.25 of impact on some arbitrary scale I just made up. Why would we act as if it's 0 when we could at LEAST act as if it's 2.35?? Your scenario is exactly the opposite of this and a really unhelpful metaphor
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Where does the lower bound of 2.35 come from? When you state this lower bound you are saying that we know with certainty that at least this much impact will happen. We lack that data so there's no lower bound, or rather the lower bound is zero. You could falsely claim a lower bound, but that erodes the credibility of the environmental movement.