6 ms·

> Ok - have you personally noticed anything at all? As it happens, yes I have. Summers where I am seem way hotter than when I was a kid 30 years ago. But to be

> Ok - have you personally noticed anything at all? As it happens, yes I have. Summers where I am seem way hotter than when I was a kid 30 years ago. But to be honest, what an unreliable way to judge! Better to measure and analyse the data methodologically. Tracking sucks, but do you really think people need global heating to convince them to put data-sniffing smart devices in their homes? And what about the trillions in the oil industry? We've fought wars over the stuff, but now the oil lobby has been defeated or paid off because enough powerful people want to know when I make a coffee? It would be strangely comforting if our chaotic world could be explained by a grand conspiracy. It's too easy an explanation for me. It feels like religion. By the way, not sure if you're aware that Vanguard operates index funds. Those shares are owned by very many different investors, many of them with small holdings. I only know this because I'm one of them, so this may be the case for some of the other big hitters in those lists too. As far as I know they don't get actively involved in corporate strategy. They are passive funds with very low management fees.

verisimi 3y ago
> Better to measure and analyse the data methodologically. Have you? Or do you mean you trust the data provided? Do you recollect the climategate email, where historical data was "updated"? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/?sh=5e24854f27ba https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climateg... “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” > Tracking sucks, but do you really think people need global heating to convince them to put data-sniffing smart devices in their homes? Yes - to accept pervasive monitoring and control, you need a good reason. > Those shares are owned by very many different investors, many of them with small holdings. I only know this because I'm one of them, so this may be the case for some of the other big hitters in those lists too. AFAIK, you don't get to choose where and how they invest. And these funds are somewhat larger than the corporate strategy level. They would be more at international legislation level, no?
- anonymous_sorry 3y ago
  >AFAIK, you don't get to choose where and how they invest. Fair point, but neither does Vanguard really. Index funds are automatically allocated to all the stocks in an index proportionally to market cap. > Do you mean you trust the data provided? I'm a software engineer. It is not feasible for me to sufficiently collect or analyse data outside my limited areas of expertise. As I said at the beginning, I must provisionally accept and make personal decisions based on the consensus view of experts. In theory that leaves me open to manipulation by shadowy, powerful forces capable of exerting influence over an entire field of scientists. In practice I observe enough skepticism amongst scientists to give me confidence. I'm not talking about acting on every story of the form "study indicates link between x and y". Talk to me when it's been replicated, and confounders controlled. Talk to me about reviews and meta-analyses. I remember reading about climategate emails at the time. I see a few out-of-context quotes cherry-picked from thousands of emails. I could link articles defending the scientists [0], but ultimately the grand conspiracy hypothesis is unfalsifiable - you can keep expanding the conspiracy to include anyone who denies the conspiracy. Conspiracies can exist, but the wider you have to go to make them work, the less plausible they become as an explanation. And on climate specifically, it's especially implausible when there are huge, wealthy vested interests who stand to lose money if we burn less fossil fuels. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climategate-10-years-on-what-lessons-have-we-learned https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climateg...
  - verisimi 3y ago
    Thanks for your thoughts. While I think its fair enough to 'default trust' the world you know, there is a risk in so doing. I think you're acknowledging that conspiring is a possibility - most people can't consider this. Although, I can't imagine anything more natural - of course people would work together to gain advantage! There is lots of information to support the grand conspiracy hypothesis if you choose to look. Eg the fact that all the US presidents are bloodline relations. Or that the UN (a non-elected entity) is determining the future infrastructure in your local city (pedestrianised, apartment blocks, smart meters, etc). Or that all the worlds' governments acted in tandem during the last 3 years - it was no long 'the economy stupid' but a mass media campaign. Etc. I would encourage you to look more deeply into any area where you are already an expert, and see who determines the parameters of acceptable discussion. Is there legislation, an administrative body, a licensing scheme? Who gets to determine the parameters under consideration, that all the companies and institutions then have to follow? Then consider, are these the parameters you yourself think are important? Can you envisage a way whereby the data can be subverted to misrepresent the reality? I think you'll be surprised how available the information for a grand conspiracy is. Of course its far more pleasant to imagine that life is unfolding naturally. IMO it simply is not the case and never has been. As Edward Bernais (the father of public relations and Freud's double nephew) expressed it, in 1928, in his book Propaganda: > The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, and our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind. Each individual is faced with a question - do I want to know the reality of the situation, or not? Its not as easy to answer as you might think. Each of us has to answer this for ourselves - pretending we weren't aware or something, is disingenuous.

verisimi 3y ago

> Better to measure and analyse the data methodologically. Have you? Or do you mean you trust the data provided? Do you recollect the climategate email, where historical data was "updated"? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/?sh=5e24854f27ba https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climateg... “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” > Tracking sucks, but do you really think people need global heating to convince them to put data-sniffing smart devices in their homes? Yes - to accept pervasive monitoring and control, you need a good reason. > Those shares are owned by very many different investors, many of them with small holdings. I only know this because I'm one of them, so this may be the case for some of the other big hitters in those lists too. AFAIK, you don't get to choose where and how they invest. And these funds are somewhat larger than the corporate strategy level. They would be more at international legislation level, no?

anonymous_sorry 3y ago
>AFAIK, you don't get to choose where and how they invest. Fair point, but neither does Vanguard really. Index funds are automatically allocated to all the stocks in an index proportionally to market cap. > Do you mean you trust the data provided? I'm a software engineer. It is not feasible for me to sufficiently collect or analyse data outside my limited areas of expertise. As I said at the beginning, I must provisionally accept and make personal decisions based on the consensus view of experts. In theory that leaves me open to manipulation by shadowy, powerful forces capable of exerting influence over an entire field of scientists. In practice I observe enough skepticism amongst scientists to give me confidence. I'm not talking about acting on every story of the form "study indicates link between x and y". Talk to me when it's been replicated, and confounders controlled. Talk to me about reviews and meta-analyses. I remember reading about climategate emails at the time. I see a few out-of-context quotes cherry-picked from thousands of emails. I could link articles defending the scientists [0], but ultimately the grand conspiracy hypothesis is unfalsifiable - you can keep expanding the conspiracy to include anyone who denies the conspiracy. Conspiracies can exist, but the wider you have to go to make them work, the less plausible they become as an explanation. And on climate specifically, it's especially implausible when there are huge, wealthy vested interests who stand to lose money if we burn less fossil fuels. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climategate-10-years-on-what-lessons-have-we-learned https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climateg...
- verisimi 3y ago
  Thanks for your thoughts. While I think its fair enough to 'default trust' the world you know, there is a risk in so doing. I think you're acknowledging that conspiring is a possibility - most people can't consider this. Although, I can't imagine anything more natural - of course people would work together to gain advantage! There is lots of information to support the grand conspiracy hypothesis if you choose to look. Eg the fact that all the US presidents are bloodline relations. Or that the UN (a non-elected entity) is determining the future infrastructure in your local city (pedestrianised, apartment blocks, smart meters, etc). Or that all the worlds' governments acted in tandem during the last 3 years - it was no long 'the economy stupid' but a mass media campaign. Etc. I would encourage you to look more deeply into any area where you are already an expert, and see who determines the parameters of acceptable discussion. Is there legislation, an administrative body, a licensing scheme? Who gets to determine the parameters under consideration, that all the companies and institutions then have to follow? Then consider, are these the parameters you yourself think are important? Can you envisage a way whereby the data can be subverted to misrepresent the reality? I think you'll be surprised how available the information for a grand conspiracy is. Of course its far more pleasant to imagine that life is unfolding naturally. IMO it simply is not the case and never has been. As Edward Bernais (the father of public relations and Freud's double nephew) expressed it, in 1928, in his book Propaganda: > The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, and our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind. Each individual is faced with a question - do I want to know the reality of the situation, or not? Its not as easy to answer as you might think. Each of us has to answer this for ourselves - pretending we weren't aware or something, is disingenuous.