5 ms·

So, attempting to be objective and realistic are harmful to the cause?

cube2222 4y ago
Correlation is not causation. If you're indicating causation without any sensible proof, citation, or well-reasoned hypothesis, and just give a "scary" slideshow with "yeah, that might be climate change... or it might not, idk", then that will help people who are trying to show that "climate-change reporting is a bunch of BS" support their narrative. A lot of people will then, when they see a few such examples, assume that all climate-change reporting is like that.
- lukeschlather 4y ago
  If you're bringing up the question of what causes global climate change in response to an article that is pretty narrowly focused on local climate change in Norway, a lot of people will assume that you know that global climate change is generally understood to be caused by human behavior, but are looking for ways to cast doubt on that fact without actually arguing the point.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - realworldperson 4y ago
    [dead]
- notahacker 4y ago
  > If you're indicating causation without any sensible proof, citation, or well-reasoned hypothesis, and just give a "scary" slideshow with "yeah, that might be climate change... or it might not, idk", then that will help people who are trying to show that "climate-change reporting is a bunch of BS" support their narrative. If you're determined to imagine that even stuff like literal temperature changes aren't sensible proof of climate change, that hypotheses linking the weather in Norway to the weather in the rest of the world or temperature changes to changes in flora and fauna need to be thoroughly explained to be plausible, and don't trust that quoted academics have actually done the research unless the journalists hyperlink their original papers, then yeah, maybe the acknowledgement that climate isn't the only factor affecting flora and fauna in Norway (no shit!) is the clincher that it's all a big con. But then, if you're determined to imagine that entire fields of scientific research and thousands of actual published scientific papers must all be irredeemably flawed because a pop science article which doesn't pretend to be anything other than a list of things observed in Norway takes a less rigorous approach, I'm not sure improving the article is going to change matters. It's not like news articles opposing the theory of anthropogenic causes for climate change or global warming in general are renowned for reading like academic studies...
TotoHorner 4y ago
That's the entire point, they didn't attempt to be objective nor realistic. That's honestly the biggest issue with a lot of these radical climate activists too. They use intentionally misleading arguments to exaggerate timelines and pretend we're already screwed. The media certainly doesn't help as more climate alarmism generates more clicks. And of course, if you say that they're exaggerating then you immediately get branded a "climate change denier". Now you have a generation of 20 year olds who think it's immoral to have children because of climate change and other dumb shit like that.
- bombcar 4y ago
  The sad part is if we’re already screwed it defeats the argument of doing much of anything anyway so everyone continues doing what they were going to do anyway.
  - TotoHorner 4y ago
    Nope. It's not binary. That's the entire point.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      I think you and the parent are both correct. If we are “screwed” (I.e no action will prevent runaway warming) then any response to prevent warming is pointless. However you are correct that being “screwed” or not is a false binary (we don’t know if warming is reversible but it is likely we can make a positive change and avoid runaway).
- LastTrain 4y ago
  You lost me at “radical”, which makes you sound like a nut. What about this article is radical? Are they suggesting violence?
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    What makes you think Radical means violence? Radical was used 100% correctly according to its definition. Radical (adjective) [1]: believing or expressing the belief that there should be great or extreme social or political change [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/radical https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/radic...
geertj 4y ago
> So, attempting to be objective and realistic are harmful to the cause? Yes, this can harm the cause. Providing honest true facts while not providing data supporting causation can cause people to become skeptical of climate change if some of true facts change because they were caused by something other than climate change.
SkyBelow 4y ago
Humans aren't great as being logical. A scientist giving an expertly sourced claim with plenty of disclaimers is going to have their idea given less importance than a charismatic speaker using conviction and force but having no evidence and being entirely wrong. Humans like confidence more than facts. I'm not sure what the fix is, because a scientist is generally speaking with the level of confidence that matches their knowledge and understanding. Do we ask them to be more confident even if it goes past what their knowledge and understanding can justify? And thanks to the Gell-Mann Effect, even if you invest time and resources into convincing the population the expert is right in one case, they still default back to believe the confident and charismatic speaker who doesn't know what they are talking about (or even worse, is being purposefully misleading).

Correlation is not causation. If you're indicating causation without any sensible proof, citation, or well-reasoned hypothesis, and just give a "scary" slideshow with "yeah, that might be climate change... or it might not, idk", then that will help people who are trying to show that "climate-change reporting is a bunch of BS" support their narrative. A lot of people will then, when they see a few such examples, assume that all climate-change reporting is like that.

lukeschlather 4y ago
If you're bringing up the question of what causes global climate change in response to an article that is pretty narrowly focused on local climate change in Norway, a lot of people will assume that you know that global climate change is generally understood to be caused by human behavior, but are looking for ways to cast doubt on that fact without actually arguing the point.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- realworldperson 4y ago
  [dead]
notahacker 4y ago
> If you're indicating causation without any sensible proof, citation, or well-reasoned hypothesis, and just give a "scary" slideshow with "yeah, that might be climate change... or it might not, idk", then that will help people who are trying to show that "climate-change reporting is a bunch of BS" support their narrative. If you're determined to imagine that even stuff like literal temperature changes aren't sensible proof of climate change, that hypotheses linking the weather in Norway to the weather in the rest of the world or temperature changes to changes in flora and fauna need to be thoroughly explained to be plausible, and don't trust that quoted academics have actually done the research unless the journalists hyperlink their original papers, then yeah, maybe the acknowledgement that climate isn't the only factor affecting flora and fauna in Norway (no shit!) is the clincher that it's all a big con. But then, if you're determined to imagine that entire fields of scientific research and thousands of actual published scientific papers must all be irredeemably flawed because a pop science article which doesn't pretend to be anything other than a list of things observed in Norway takes a less rigorous approach, I'm not sure improving the article is going to change matters. It's not like news articles opposing the theory of anthropogenic causes for climate change or global warming in general are renowned for reading like academic studies...

TotoHorner 4y ago

That's the entire point, they didn't attempt to be objective nor realistic. That's honestly the biggest issue with a lot of these radical climate activists too. They use intentionally misleading arguments to exaggerate timelines and pretend we're already screwed. The media certainly doesn't help as more climate alarmism generates more clicks. And of course, if you say that they're exaggerating then you immediately get branded a "climate change denier". Now you have a generation of 20 year olds who think it's immoral to have children because of climate change and other dumb shit like that.

bombcar 4y ago
The sad part is if we’re already screwed it defeats the argument of doing much of anything anyway so everyone continues doing what they were going to do anyway.
- TotoHorner 4y ago
  Nope. It's not binary. That's the entire point.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    I think you and the parent are both correct. If we are “screwed” (I.e no action will prevent runaway warming) then any response to prevent warming is pointless. However you are correct that being “screwed” or not is a false binary (we don’t know if warming is reversible but it is likely we can make a positive change and avoid runaway).
LastTrain 4y ago
You lost me at “radical”, which makes you sound like a nut. What about this article is radical? Are they suggesting violence?
- IncRnd 4y ago
  What makes you think Radical means violence? Radical was used 100% correctly according to its definition. Radical (adjective) [1]: believing or expressing the belief that there should be great or extreme social or political change [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/radical https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/radic...

geertj 4y ago

> So, attempting to be objective and realistic are harmful to the cause? Yes, this can harm the cause. Providing honest true facts while not providing data supporting causation can cause people to become skeptical of climate change if some of true facts change because they were caused by something other than climate change.

SkyBelow 4y ago

Humans aren't great as being logical. A scientist giving an expertly sourced claim with plenty of disclaimers is going to have their idea given less importance than a charismatic speaker using conviction and force but having no evidence and being entirely wrong. Humans like confidence more than facts. I'm not sure what the fix is, because a scientist is generally speaking with the level of confidence that matches their knowledge and understanding. Do we ask them to be more confident even if it goes past what their knowledge and understanding can justify? And thanks to the Gell-Mann Effect, even if you invest time and resources into convincing the population the expert is right in one case, they still default back to believe the confident and charismatic speaker who doesn't know what they are talking about (or even worse, is being purposefully misleading).