4 ms·

I would hope that even in the US, where it's certainly popular to run on a political anti-intellectual platform due to the wide societal gaps between the educat

I would hope that even in the US, where it's certainly popular to run on a political anti-intellectual platform due to the wide societal gaps between the educated and the uneducated, accounting for science when building the rationale for policy decision-making is still a no-brainer.

mort96 3y ago
It doesn't seem like it? One of the two parties's stance on climate change is that it's not happening and we should do nothing about it; and despite having been in power quite a bit since the science on climate change became clear, they have stayed true to their platform.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  That’s a nice bit of sleight of hand. The science isn’t clear and most of it isn’t really science as it isn’t falsifiable. That doesn’t mean it’s not possibly useful but it’s also not the final word on anything. Saying that I agree that moving carbon from the earth to the atmosphere has the ability to contribute to a warming effect. We can model that in a lab but there’s still the question of scale and complexity. But that’s just a small part of it. The other part is does it really matter? Some models, which sensationalist media loves, will tell you we are all dead in 50 years. Other models, which aren’t so popular with media say otherwise. Point being these are models which greatly simplify reality. They don’t account for most things. But climate doomers have taken it to a quasi-religious place. It’s cultish and weird. It’s like there’s a hole being filled for some people… A thing to be skeptical about is the billions in NGOs/etc that profit from this. That a scenario based on doom inherently attracts power as it’s useful and one that doesn’t predict doom does not. So yeah maybe there’s some that just flat out deny. But there’s also many that are skeptical of the solutions and the motives of those pushing (and their hypocrisy) them as well as the practical reality of it all.
  - mort96 3y ago
    The science is very clear about the fact that anthropogenic climate change is happening and is going to have major consequences. Your denying that is a great example of how whether or not to accept the conclusions brought by the scientific process is highly political. Citing "sensationalist media" doesn't strike me as very serious of you. You'd probably be better off linking to these peer reviewed papers which show that climate change doesn't matter. Ideally, you'd link to meta-studies which show that the position "climate-change doesn't matter" is anything but an extremely fringe view among climate scientists. Can you do that for me?
    - nemo44x 3y ago
      Science can show putting carbon into a lab created atmosphere can create a greenhouse warming effect as the carbon molecules prevent some heat from returning to space. In higher concentrations (levels we could never get to) the effect becomes more pronounced and “runaway”. But the science does not show major consequences or catastrophe. That part is conjecture and speculation and a critical analysis of it is necessary. You see, modeling climate is fraught with error and isn’t actually science as it isn’t falsifiable. That isn’t to say some models are useful but they’re far closer to opinion than objective fact. One only has to look at models from 25 years ago to see how wrong many were. There’s also the problem that climatologists are incentivized to project dire consequences as this gets funded because it gets reported on and creates political power. The world ending in a ball of fire is more interesting than suggesting things that could change will be manageable. Color me skeptical indeed. I don’t keep a portfolio of opinions on the matter but read a variety of them. And there is a noticeable trend of climatologists who were dire 20 years ago being less so today. I think the article attached here for example exemplifies this. The hysteria from climate doomers is not the voice to listen to.
      - mgaunard 3y ago
        Climate change is a fact. The data doesn't lie. Even the US government agreed in spite of the financial impact to their party supporters. Just get informed and stop spouting bullshit on the Internet.
  - mgaunard 3y ago
    You shouldn't rely on mass media to inform yourself or the people. Now, there is a lot of bullshit about "green", and people profiteering from government funding to do things that don't really help, but that's just the usual politics. It's easier to say the problem is that people flush the toilet too often or don't sort their trash rather than getting a big corporation to significantly cut their profits in the name of the environment. You'll find that all the green initiatives mostly come from the petrol industries as a way to distract from the catastrophic impact of their businesses.

mort96 3y ago

It doesn't seem like it? One of the two parties's stance on climate change is that it's not happening and we should do nothing about it; and despite having been in power quite a bit since the science on climate change became clear, they have stayed true to their platform.

nemo44x 3y ago
That’s a nice bit of sleight of hand. The science isn’t clear and most of it isn’t really science as it isn’t falsifiable. That doesn’t mean it’s not possibly useful but it’s also not the final word on anything. Saying that I agree that moving carbon from the earth to the atmosphere has the ability to contribute to a warming effect. We can model that in a lab but there’s still the question of scale and complexity. But that’s just a small part of it. The other part is does it really matter? Some models, which sensationalist media loves, will tell you we are all dead in 50 years. Other models, which aren’t so popular with media say otherwise. Point being these are models which greatly simplify reality. They don’t account for most things. But climate doomers have taken it to a quasi-religious place. It’s cultish and weird. It’s like there’s a hole being filled for some people… A thing to be skeptical about is the billions in NGOs/etc that profit from this. That a scenario based on doom inherently attracts power as it’s useful and one that doesn’t predict doom does not. So yeah maybe there’s some that just flat out deny. But there’s also many that are skeptical of the solutions and the motives of those pushing (and their hypocrisy) them as well as the practical reality of it all.
- mort96 3y ago
  The science is very clear about the fact that anthropogenic climate change is happening and is going to have major consequences. Your denying that is a great example of how whether or not to accept the conclusions brought by the scientific process is highly political. Citing "sensationalist media" doesn't strike me as very serious of you. You'd probably be better off linking to these peer reviewed papers which show that climate change doesn't matter. Ideally, you'd link to meta-studies which show that the position "climate-change doesn't matter" is anything but an extremely fringe view among climate scientists. Can you do that for me?
  - nemo44x 3y ago
    Science can show putting carbon into a lab created atmosphere can create a greenhouse warming effect as the carbon molecules prevent some heat from returning to space. In higher concentrations (levels we could never get to) the effect becomes more pronounced and “runaway”. But the science does not show major consequences or catastrophe. That part is conjecture and speculation and a critical analysis of it is necessary. You see, modeling climate is fraught with error and isn’t actually science as it isn’t falsifiable. That isn’t to say some models are useful but they’re far closer to opinion than objective fact. One only has to look at models from 25 years ago to see how wrong many were. There’s also the problem that climatologists are incentivized to project dire consequences as this gets funded because it gets reported on and creates political power. The world ending in a ball of fire is more interesting than suggesting things that could change will be manageable. Color me skeptical indeed. I don’t keep a portfolio of opinions on the matter but read a variety of them. And there is a noticeable trend of climatologists who were dire 20 years ago being less so today. I think the article attached here for example exemplifies this. The hysteria from climate doomers is not the voice to listen to.
    - mgaunard 3y ago
      Climate change is a fact. The data doesn't lie. Even the US government agreed in spite of the financial impact to their party supporters. Just get informed and stop spouting bullshit on the Internet.
- mgaunard 3y ago
  You shouldn't rely on mass media to inform yourself or the people. Now, there is a lot of bullshit about "green", and people profiteering from government funding to do things that don't really help, but that's just the usual politics. It's easier to say the problem is that people flush the toilet too often or don't sort their trash rather than getting a big corporation to significantly cut their profits in the name of the environment. You'll find that all the green initiatives mostly come from the petrol industries as a way to distract from the catastrophic impact of their businesses.