Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Paris Climate Disagreement

The Paris Climate Disagreement (Page 10)
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 08:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
1) Global warming will potentially destroy the planet.
2) People who scoff at it are complicit in the potential destruction of the planet.
3) This is bad behavior, it therefore deserves punishment, and/or attempts to alter it.
Not really (at least for me), but before I offer my corrections I'll wait for a few more people to weigh in cause I'm curious what they will say.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2017, 02:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't know what this means, but I would be really interested in your paraphrasing why you feel it is that people like myself, Laminar, Oreocookie, etc. are frustrated with Badkosh and Chongo on this issue?

Maybe you can help bridge this gap.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
1) Global warming will potentially destroy the planet.
2) People who scoff at it are complicit in the potential destruction of the planet.
3) This is bad behavior, it therefore deserves punishment, and/or attempts to alter it.
^^What he said. Though I would change the first two points to:

1) Anthropogenic global warming is destroying the planet.
2) People who scoff at humans being the direct cause are complicit in the destruction of the planet.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2017, 03:01 AM
 
Nope, for me it is more like this:

1) thousands of scientists have said that this is a threat and a problem
2) these scientists have put in countless hours of work studying these problems and reside all over the world. It is arrogant to just think of this debate as an American debate.
3) the scientific method has proven to be a tried and true method for establishing the best version of truth humanity has known. It involves skepticism and exhaustive peer review
4) the time for that skepticism is over, because scientists have spent years and years in this process and have come up with conclusions that the vast majority of scientists by a very wide margin agree with. Getting humans to agree upon things is difficult, so for this level of agreement to exist after this many years in as many organizations as have been involved with painstaking and exhaustive research is a pretty big deal
5) random people on the internet that think they know better than these scientists are obnoxious, arrogant, annoying, troll-like, and backwards
6) their mistrust of science given all of these points is extremely weird, especially given the fact that they trust other weird and dubious things for equally weird reasons
7) the stakes are high in the potential destruction that will likely be caused by global warming someday, and politicians have the power to make a difference here but won't if there are enough backwards anti-science people that support this ideology and will vote
8) it is very disturbing and confusing why this is a partisan issue, but the anti-science people do their part to perpetuate this
9) it is annoying being told that people that believe in science are elitist, naive, generally close-minded to skepticism, have their heads in the sand, deserve our patience, etc. **** that. It's been a decade of this bullshit, it's time to move on and embrace facts
10) what scientists and other intellectual leaders have established as facts over the years have become the pillars of our society, it is frustrating for this to be undermined, especially since many of the arguments for this are incredibly flimsy. Where would we be without scientific truth, the technologies which have emerged, and the wisdom gleaned from this hard work and study, not to mention trust of the scientific process?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2017, 08:44 AM
 
So tell us how giving away billions to other countries will fix the climate. That IS why all these 'studies' are happening. $$$$$
explain why the climate is cooling slightly. Could it be the average temps rise and fall according the orbit of earth, and its progression? Perhaps the sun? Perhaps how much solar dust is between earth and the sun? Has their ever been a way to accurately measure how much crap is blown into the atmosphere by volcanic activity both on land and under the seas? I see where the 'scientists' are plugging in many estimates into their formulae without knowing even how far off their assumptions are.
Bessons argument is the number of papers prove it to be true, but no evaluations as to methodology. Understanding the methodology is what is needed before NASA spends a buttload of $ devising a satellite experiment to look closer. This is what most of the arguments have been about.

Also since even the climate scientists agree that the earth goes through cycles of ice ages and warmer climate in between, do you think we will end up back in another ice age? What then?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2017, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So tell us how giving away billions to other countries will fix the climate. That IS why all these 'studies' are happening. $$$$$
explain why the climate is cooling slightly. Could it be the average temps rise and fall according the orbit of earth, and its progression? Perhaps the sun? Perhaps how much solar dust is between earth and the sun? Has their ever been a way to accurately measure how much steal is blown into the atmosphere by volcanic activity both on land and under the seas? I see where the 'scientists' are plugging in many estimates into their formulae without knowing even how far off their assumptions are.
Bessons argument is the number of papers prove it to be true, but no evaluations as to methodology. Understanding the methodology is what is needed before NASA spends a buttload of $ devising a satellite experiment to look closer. This is what most of the arguments have been about.

Also since even the climate scientists agree that the earth goes through cycles of ice ages and warmer climate in between, do you think we will end up back in another ice age? What then?


Badkosh, you are killing me with these incredibly stupid arguments. If you've really hung out with scientists it sounds like you did not pay much attention to what they were saying? I thought you were interested in science that is not sloppy?

Climate change brings about radical weather changes that are sometimes hot, sometimes cold. The term "global warming" is a reference to the fact that on the whole the temperatures are rising, but that doesn't mean that certain parts of the planet won't experience extreme weather shifts where the weather is much cooler than normal.

As far as the methodology, that is exactly what is evaluated within these peer reviews. This is part of the scientific method.

Please answer Laminar's question, it will likely be extremely useful in closing this gap and perhaps putting an end to these really terrible arguments.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2017, 09:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So tell us how giving away billions to other countries will fix the climate. That IS why all these 'studies' are happening. $$$$$
This statement is moronic. The world-class scientists in the US, Canada, and EU are all producing their scientific results because.....money goes to other countries?

explain why the climate is cooling slightly.
The climate is not cooling slightly. The hottest year on record was 2016. Please explain why you could possibly think the climate is cooling.

Could it be the average temps rise and fall according the orbit of earth, and its progression?
Yes. It's literally a fundamental tenet of climate science. It does not explain the current global temperature trend.

Perhaps the sun? Perhaps how much solar dust is between earth and the sun?
Yes. Solar variation is literally a fundamental tenet of climate science. It does not explain the current global temperature trend.

Has their ever been a way to accurately measure how much crap is blown into the atmosphere by volcanic activity both on land and under the seas?
Yes, with a caveat - almost by definition there is no way to "accurately" measure this volume, so best estimates are used based on the available tools. Of course...volcanic activity is literally a fundamental tenet of climate science. It does not explain the current global temperature trend - and as I'm sure you know, volcanic activity generally acts as a cooling effect, not warming.

I see where the 'scientists' are plugging in many estimates into their formulae without knowing even how far off their assumptions are.
Please give me an example.

Bessons argument is the number of papers prove it to be true, but no evaluations as to methodology. Understanding the methodology is what is needed before NASA spends a buttload of $ devising a satellite experiment to look closer. This is what most of the arguments have been about.
That is literally what "science" is about: peer review and reproducibility. You don't seem to understand what this means.

Also since even the climate scientists agree that the earth goes through cycles of ice ages and warmer climate in between, do you think we will end up back in another ice age? What then?
That is likely to happen with Milankovitch cycles. We do have some time to figure out a solution. How else are we going to end up in an ice age?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2017, 07:23 AM
 
Carbon Credits = $$$ = Scam.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2017, 08:37 AM
 
Well you've demonstrated a real grasp of the topic
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 10:13 AM
 
Neil DeGrasse Tyson made a good point recently...

How come nobody seemed to dispute the scientists prediction of the eclipse? The exact same process was used for coming up with these prediction models as was used for climate change.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 10:30 AM
 
I'd wager planetary movement is more predictable than the exact climate of an entire planet.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 11:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Neil DeGrasse Tyson made a good point recently...

How come nobody seemed to dispute the scientists prediction of the eclipse? The exact same process was used for coming up with these prediction models as was used for climate change.
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I'd wager planetary movement is more predictable than the exact climate of an entire planet.
Still, the event on October 13th, 1917 was missed.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 11:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I'd wager planetary movement is more predictable than the exact climate of an entire planet.

Of course, but it is still the same scientific process. Either the process works and is pure or it isn't, right? Our trust of the process shouldn't be dependent on the complexity of the science. We rely on science for a ton of stuff, even life threatening stuff (e.g. medical science). Why are the deniers okay with trusting the science behind most things, but not climate change?

It makes no sense to me.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 11:52 AM
 
GIGO
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Of course, but it is still the same scientific process. Either the process works and is pure or it isn't, right? Our trust of the process shouldn't be dependent on the complexity of the science. We rely on science for a ton of stuff, even life threatening stuff (e.g. medical science). Why are the deniers okay with trusting the science behind most things, but not climate change?

It makes no sense to me.
You don't realize this has to do with money?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You don't realize this has to do with money?

Money definitely is perpetuating the lobbying and confusing people like Chongo and Badkosh over the science, but I think this goes beyond scientific facts.

Look at this thread and how Chongo and Badkosh have handled being confronted with overwhelming evidence against their little bubble. If it were simply a matter of fact vs. fiction they probably would have dropped this years ago, but I think this has to do with trust, emotions, and perhaps wanting to thumb noses at liberals that jumped on the bandwagon years ago.

A lot of the arguments in here have had to do with trust of the scientific output. They may not be a representative sample, but it is clear that trust of the scientific consensus is a component to all of this. What I don't get is why they are so comfortable with the inconsistency of this way of thinking.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 01:56 PM
 
Maybe you should look at the study science has done in confronting people with facts that contradict their beliefs.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

A lot of the arguments in here have had to do with trust of the scientific output. They may not be a representative sample, but it is clear that trust of the scientific consensus is a component to all of this. What I don't get is why they are so comfortable with the inconsistency of this way of thinking.
GIGO
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 03:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
GIGO

Yes Chongo, the tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles are garbage. We know how you feel.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Yes Chongo, the tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles are garbage. We know how you feel.
Weather satellites are what has made the improvement in hurricane forecasting, even with that the path is not always accurate. What happened the last time a hurricane was headed to Houston?
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 06:17 PM
 
99% of scientists are onboard with man made climate change.
94% agree that Tobacco causes lung cancer.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 06:21 PM
 
This is another one of those things the AGW side is missing.

The vast majority are most intimately familiar with climate science in the context of weather forecasts, and it ****ing sucks.

That doesn't mean AGW is wrong, it means the "isn't it obvious you morons" is a poor sell.

It's like a fat doctor judgementally telling you to watch your weight. The problem isn't the doctor being factually wrong, it's the bad optics they're reinforcing.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Weather satellites are what has made the improvement in hurricane forecasting, even with that the path is not always accurate. What happened the last time a hurricane was headed to Houston?

If you are a scientific expert I'm an expert of catholicism. I'm a guy on the internet and I say I am, and facts apparently don't matter at all, so there.

To be a good catholic you should not support a douche-bag like Trump, Jesus says so in Luke 3:14, so you are doing everything wrong.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is another one of those things the AGW side is missing.

The vast majority are most intimately familiar with climate science in the context of weather forecasts, and it ****ing sucks.

That doesn't mean AGW is wrong, it means the "isn't it obvious you morons" is a poor sell.

It's like a fat doctor judgementally telling you to watch your weight. The problem isn't the doctor being factually wrong, it's the bad optics they're reinforcing.
This is the most persuasive argument I've seen for climate science denial. Makes sense, and agrees with everyday life.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 06:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is another one of those things the AGW side is missing.

The vast majority are most intimately familiar with climate science in the context of weather forecasts, and it ****ing sucks.

That doesn't mean AGW is wrong, it means the "isn't it obvious you morons" is a poor sell.

It's like a fat doctor judgementally telling you to watch your weight. The problem isn't the doctor being factually wrong, it's the bad optics they're reinforcing.

Why do scientific facts need to be sold?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 07:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why do scientific facts need to be sold?
Is this a rhetorical question? For the same reason anything needs to be sold.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
This is the most persuasive argument I've seen for climate science denial. Makes sense, and agrees with everyday life.
Why, thank you.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 07:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is this a rhetorical question? For the same reason anything needs to be sold.
It's kind of rhetorical. I'm not a fan of this culture that rejects information that doesn't fit in our bubbles. I'm inclined to think this culture is unique to the US as well. I'm not aware of this sort of denial going on in other developed nations to this extent.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 07:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
99% of scientists are onboard with man made climate change.
94% agree that Tobacco causes lung cancer.
100% of scientists believe human life begins at fertilization. 100% are on board with the unborn child being human.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
100% of scientists believe human life begins at fertilization. 100% are on board with the unborn child being human.
Source?
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 09:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Weather satellites are what has made the improvement in hurricane forecasting, even with that the path is not always accurate. What happened the last time a hurricane was headed to Houston?
my brain hurts
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
100% of scientists believe human life begins at fertilization. 100% are on board with the unborn child being human.
Do you believe this affects the weather?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2017, 11:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Do you believe this affects the weather?

No, but I've posted before that Paul Erlich, Gloria Steinem, and other do.

“How do you do it humanely? Well, first thing you do is work very hard to get every woman on the planet exactly the same rights, opportunities, pay, and so on as every man. When women get rights, birth rates go down.” Next, promote birth control. “Those two things alone would go far to solve the population problem.”

The problem of overconsumption, Ehrlich said, could be solved almost instantly, given the right government. As an example, he mentioned how quickly the U.S. switched from producing cars to manufacturing tanks during World War II.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2017, 12:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
my brain hurts
He is persistent. I'm wondering when he'll run out of spaghetti to throw at the wall...

Don't forget about the Russian weather balloons from the 1970s, Chongo.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2017, 12:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
No, but I've posted before that Paul Erlich, Gloria Steinem, and other do.
I like turtles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2017, 04:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It's kind of rhetorical. I'm not a fan of this culture that rejects information that doesn't fit in our bubbles. I'm inclined to think this culture is unique to the US as well. I'm not aware of this sort of denial going on in other developed nations to this extent.
The impulse to reject will be proportional to the sacrifice involved. This is how our instincts are wired. It's a survival trait.

For reasons not limited to geography, population density, infrastructure age, media model, style of governance, and length of cultural continuity, the U.S. is being asked to make a much larger sacrifice than the rest of developed world, while at the same time being less equipped to handle it.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2017, 05:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The impulse to reject will be proportional to the sacrifice involved. This is how our instincts are wired. It's a survival trait.

For reasons not limited to geography, population density, infrastructure age, media model, style of governance, and length of cultural continuity, the U.S. is being asked to make a much larger sacrifice than the rest of developed world, while at the same time being less equipped to handle it.
Or... America is being given a great opportunity. By continuing to defend and support a dying fossil fuel industry, we let the rest of the world lead the way on new technology.

When coal finally dies, we will be buying green technology from Europe, China, India, etc.

Leadership has it's benefits as well as it's costs.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2017, 08:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The impulse to reject will be proportional to the sacrifice involved. This is how our instincts are wired. It's a survival trait.

For reasons not limited to geography, population density, infrastructure age, media model, style of governance, and length of cultural continuity, the U.S. is being asked to make a much larger sacrifice than the rest of developed world, while at the same time being less equipped to handle it.
Sorry, not buying this.

I'd say the US is the most equipped to deal with this being leaders in tech and certainly investment in tech. Like Paco said, this is also a great opportunity to lead the world, just like we have with the smartphone revolution, the internet age, etc.

I appreciate you trying to find answers for me, but when I ask these "WTF, world" questions I'm not always expecting concrete answers. I realize that there are many factors at play with denial, but at the same time it is also incredibly strange, which I was expressing
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2017, 10:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is another one of those things the AGW side is missing.

The vast majority are most intimately familiar with climate science in the context of weather forecasts, and it ****ing sucks.

That doesn't mean AGW is wrong, it means the "isn't it obvious you morons" is a poor sell.

It's like a fat doctor judgementally telling you to watch your weight. The problem isn't the doctor being factually wrong, it's the bad optics they're reinforcing.
Isn't this easily explained by the difference in scale and specificity? I.e it's hard to say what will happen specifically and locally but it's easier to say what will happen globally and generally - hence, we predict temperatures rise, but no one predicted that the Great Barrier Reef would die because those specific waters warmed up so fast.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2017, 11:13 AM
 
Well it's also easily explained by having an elementary-school level of knowledge about the subject...
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2017, 11:46 AM
 
Unfortunately my best analogy is referencing the fictional science of psychohistory.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2017, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Or... America is being given a great opportunity. By continuing to defend and support a dying fossil fuel industry, we let the rest of the world lead the way on new technology.

When coal finally dies, we will be buying green technology from Europe, China, India, etc.

Leadership has it's benefits as well as it's costs.
Why is this an "or" instead of an "and"?

I'm not arguing against us being world leaders, I'm arguing in most circumstances the cognitive bias on display here is a useful biological adaptation, therefore one should naturally expect the resistance, and the resisters aren't necessarily being [nasty adjectives].
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2017, 03:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Isn't this easily explained by the difference in scale and specificity? I.e it's hard to say what will happen specifically and locally but it's easier to say what will happen globally and generally - hence, we predict temperatures rise, but no one predicted that the Great Barrier Reef would die because those specific waters warmed up so fast.
The most important part of my point is about how people process information.

We our perceptions so much weight, an easy explanation is not always enough to override them.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2017, 03:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Sorry, not buying this.

I'd say the US is the most equipped to deal with this being leaders in tech and certainly investment in tech. Like Paco said, this is also a great opportunity to lead the world, just like we have with the smartphone revolution, the internet age, etc.

I appreciate you trying to find answers for me, but when I ask these "WTF, world" questions I'm not always expecting concrete answers. I realize that there are many factors at play with denial, but at the same time it is also incredibly strange, which I was expressing
I'm arguing it's less strange than it seems.

The U.S. is fundamentally different than the rest of the developed world.

In some ways our differences will help (the rest of the developed world isn't as innovative), in some ways our differences will hinder (the rest of the developed world has compact geography, dense population, new infrastructure, state-run media, and a thousand years of cultural continuity).
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2017, 03:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The most important part of my point is about how people process information.

We our perceptions so much weight, an easy explanation is not always enough to override them.
I feel confident personal politics is a bigger issue than scientific understanding. At least in adults.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2017, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I feel confident personal politics is a bigger issue than scientific understanding. At least in adults.
I'd agree.

For people who aren't politicians, or have some significant vested interest, are personal politics also the motive behind the conclusion?
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2017, 07:42 PM
 
Are we under any illusion that this wilful ignorance is anything but partisan politics? Where are the liberal climate change deniers?

With young Earth creationism and anti-evolution sentiments, people use their religion to justify their ignorance. Flat Earthers seem to have evolved from this general culture of stupid, but the climate change deniers are just being told what to believe by conservative policy makers in the pocket of various industries such as fossil fuels who are making lots of money ****ing the environment and have no interest in that changing.
The other areas of scientific denial mentioned have certainly made it easier for the sheep to pretend their personal opinions are scientifically justified, that 'mainstream science' is conspiring against capitalism because .... Well no-one really seems to know why they would do this, so I suppose we just have to assume Soros is bribing them all to lie in between moonlighting as Antifa rioters?
That or its as simple as people want to drive trucks big enough to land planes on, leave their air conditioners on 24/7/365 and continue to have their golf courses watered and they don't give a damn if some liberal communist hippy says their grandchildren will suffer for it.

So its not scientific opinion, belief, or education, its just selfishness and peer pressure.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2017, 11:43 PM
 
If the future of humanity depends on the persuasive power of this rhetoric, we're all gonna die.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2017, 05:28 AM
 
There is no persuasive rhetoric any more. Thats the problem.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2017, 06:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
There is no persuasive rhetoric any more. Thats the problem.
The problem is the lack of mutual respect and trust. These are minimum requirements. That the subject is Science! does not make them dispensable.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2017, 10:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'd agree.

For people who aren't politicians, or have some significant vested interest, are personal politics also the motive behind the conclusion?
The motive at the lower levels is usually more akin to loyalty to party and distrust of the opposition . And you know my stance on politicians: the intelligent ones know it's real they just lie about it. The dumber ones just misunderstand things.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:17 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,