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 6)
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 09:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
^^ As if you (and 90% of the other people on `NN) are a model for either? Of course, your idea of "respect" is that someone agrees with you entirely, as you've already demonstrated in this very thread, multiple times.

You are welcome to keep on doing what you have been doing the way you have been doing it, just don't act surprised when you get the same result next time, and the time after that.

When it comes to climate change there is no agreeing with me or not. This is not a matter of opinion like issues such as abortion or the economy are. The facts are the facts regardless of what I think, what you think, or what anybody thinks. You would be in better standing trying to parade your expertise among engineers and scientists if you dropped the climate change denier schtick, and welcome the facts.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 11:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You are welcome to keep on doing what you have been doing the way you have been doing it, just don't act surprised when you get the same result next time, and the time after that.
I will, I just won't bother with his (or your) replies. Save your breath (or fingers, ATCMB).
"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
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Today, 01:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
When it comes to climate change there is no agreeing with me or not. This is not a matter of opinion like issues such as abortion or the economy are. The facts are the facts regardless of what I think, what you think, or what anybody thinks.
1) Skepticism is a fundamental part of science.
2) Science does in fact get things wrong at times. The history of science is getting things wrong. Hence the importance of #1.
3) Peer review, and academia in general, aren't quite the unimpeachable institutions people make them out to be.
4) Environmentalists (distinct from climatologists, though some are no doubt both) have a well established record of being batshit, doomsday cultists.

The thing is, I'm guessing I take little issue with the fundamental science involved, but considering the above points, I question the value of a strategy which demands submission to dogma. This is off-putting to me, and I pretty much agree. I can only imagine it's worse for someone more skeptical, or who has reasons (legitimate or otherwise) to lack trust.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Today, 02:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
1) Skepticism is a fundamental part of science.
2) Science does in fact get things wrong at times. The history of science is getting things wrong. Hence the importance of #1.
3) Peer review, and academia in general, aren't quite the unimpeachable institutions people make them out to be.
4) Environmentalists (distinct from climatologists, though some are no doubt both) have a well established record of being batshit, doomsday cultists.

The thing is, I'm guessing I take little issue with the fundamental science involved, but considering the above points, I question the value of a strategy which demands submission to dogma. This is off-putting to me, and I pretty much agree. I can only imagine it's worse for someone more skeptical, or who has reasons (legitimate or otherwise) to lack trust.

Skepticism is healthy and encouraged in science, but up to a point. These scientific conclusions were reached a long time ago. There has been a massive amount of peer review. Yes, peer review in and of itself isn't unimpeachable, but at this quantity if you can't trust the results, what scientific conclusions can you trust?

After a point doesn't skepticism just because ignorance? There are people that are skeptical that the world is older than 6000 years. You might say this is their opinion and we should respect that, but at what point do we say "no, **** that" and not give their stupid ass ignorant feelings as much weight and attention as the actual facts?

As far as the track record of environmentalists, that is probably where the climate change deniers are getting hung up on. However, the shortcomings of individuals, their passions, and their flaws should not be conflated with the massive amounts of data and conclusions from this data that have been reached.

I'm not directing this at you because I think you disagree, but because I think you are being too nice to the deniers. At what point do you think it is right to tell them to **** off and get with the program? I mean, geeesh, hasn't it been long enough already? You are clearly a far more patient man than me. At what point does your patience leave you?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Today, 04:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
1) Skepticism is a fundamental part of science.
You mistake how skepticism in science is put into practice: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is a reason why the scientific community overwhelmingly believes in global climate change: it is what their data and their models consistently and reliably says. Skepticism is applied to people who produce research that contradicts this overwhelming body of evidence. If it weren't so serious, I'd find it mildly amusing how wannabe scientists re-discovered issues that scientists had long thought about and resolved (e. g. heat islands).
Originally Posted by subego View Post
2) Science does in fact get things wrong at times. The history of science is getting things wrong. Hence the importance of #1.
The scientific consensus does not change on a whim as you suggest. New facts need to be uncovered that contradict earlier results, and then a lot of skepticism (see #1) is applied until the body of evidence for the new hypothesis is more convincing than the old one. The fundamental mechanism of global climate change was uncovered in the late 1800s by Arrhenius, and is extremely easy to understand. Therefore we have >100 years worth of evidence investigating all aspects of this issue.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
3) Peer review, and academia in general, aren't quite the unimpeachable institutions people make them out to be.
This is a very general and vague statement. What do you mean by this? I have to deal with peer review regularly, including its shortcomings (it's a system run by people), but what problems are particularly relevant for research on global climate change.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
4) Environmentalists (distinct from climatologists, though some are no doubt both) have a well established record of being batshit, doomsday cultists.
Nothing environmentalists do changes the scientific facts on the ground. Scientists should do a better job communicating their results to the public and not leave that to people who aren't experts to translate research into English. But keep in mind that they aren't hired for that (I don't have any allotted time for outreach to non-scientists).
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The thing is, I'm guessing I take little issue with the fundamental science involved, but considering the above points, I question the value of a strategy which demands submission to dogma. This is off-putting to me, and I pretty much agree.
Do you also think it is off-putting that gravity exists? Or that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer? Facts are the opposite of dogma and facts don't bend to our whims, we have to accept them as they are.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Today, 10:07 AM
 
If you want to be skeptical of something in science it needs to be because you think something is wrong somewhere. Faulty logical reasoning, bad experimental practices, inconsistencies in the data, poorly explained outlying results, or some kind of corruption or bias among those involved. Some of these are matters of opinion, most require some sort of evidence.

The skepticism against climate change is not real skepticism. Its born from the inconvenience. The people against it don't want to change their behaviour or lifestyle because it will cost them time, effort, money, or they will have to give up something they enjoy. Like a collection of gas guzzling muscle cars for example.
Because most of these people are involved in fossil fuels, or related big business, they seem to fall largely on one side of the party line so it then becomes a partisan issue. Monkey see, monkey do.
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
Today, 11:12 AM
 
@ alia,

The science I'm discussing here is psychology.

Skepticism is fundamental to science, so "you're doing skepticism wrong" is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.

The incomplete nature of knowledge is fundamental to science, so considering the proper language to describe it is "theory", even with the most well understood aspects, browbeating about the "facts" is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.

Basing an argument on how a flawed system has happened to operate with effective flawlessness in this particular instance (which it must have for these claims to be true "facts") is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.

Failing to acknowledge environmentalists have poisoned the discussion, and have cut their own swath of devastation based on poor reasoning is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.


None of these points have to do with the objective accuracy of the argument. A claim such as "that's not how scientific skepticism works" is missing the point.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Today, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@ alia,

The science I'm discussing here is psychology.

Skepticism is fundamental to science, so "you're doing skepticism wrong" is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.

The incomplete nature of knowledge is fundamental to science, so considering the proper language to describe it is "theory", even with the most well understood aspects, browbeating about the "facts" is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.

Basing an argument on how a flawed system has happened to operate with effective flawlessness in this particular instance (which it must have for these claims to be true "facts") is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.

Failing to acknowledge environmentalists have poisoned the discussion, and have cut their own swath of devastation based on poor reasoning is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.


None of these points have to do with the objective accuracy of the argument. A claim such as "that's not how scientific skepticism works" is missing the point.


I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here, but going off of what I think I understand, global warming has transitioned from a theory to established un-debatable fact. At this point, it doesn't need to sell itself.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Today, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here, but going off of what I think I understand, global warming has transitioned from a theory to established un-debatable fact. At this point, it doesn't need to sell itself.
I'm making two separate points.

1) Convincing an opponent is an exercise in salesmanship.

2) The proper academic term for what we are talking about is "theory". This means something else than the commonly accepted term. This makes the salesmanship exercise more difficult, and ignoring it puts the sale in jeopardy, just as ignoring all my other points does.


Being right doesn't mean jack shit if you don't close the deal. Covfefe is for closers.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Today, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm making two separate points.

1) Convincing an opponent is an exercise in salesmanship.

2) The proper academic term for what we are talking about is "theory". This means something else than the commonly accepted term. This makes the salesmanship exercise more difficult, and ignoring it puts the sale in jeopardy, just as ignoring all my other points does.


Being right doesn't mean jack necromancy if you don't close the deal. Covfefe is for closers.

I see...

Well, maybe I'm not trying to be a salesman at this point, as this seems like a wasted effort. What I'm doing instead is leading the horse to the water. Over, and over, and over again, hoping eventually the water will be drunk, but I'm not trying to sell the water, I'm just leading the horse there.

In case you didn't get the nuances of this brilliant metaphor, Badkosh, Chongo, and CTP are the horses here.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Today, 01:22 PM
 
I'm stealing "jack necromancy".
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Today, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm stealing "jack necromancy".

If I get more sass mouth from you I will make you a horse too. You've been warned.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Today, 07:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The science I'm discussing here is psychology.
You are pivoting here. No, the science we are discussing here is climate science. For otherwise, what does “skepticism in psychology” have to do with global climate change.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Skepticism is fundamental to science, so "you're doing skepticism wrong" is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.
Now you are pivoting from making scientific findings to communicating said findings to ordinary people. These are two distinct things. In our age there is certainly a need for better communication of scientific advances in understanding to people, but again, this has nothing to do with the findings of fact. However, if people opt to believe in conspiracy theories (“Scientists are in it for the money, they fake data to get grants!”), no amount of communication and patient explaining helps. Moreover, scientists are discouraged by their training to “sell” their results, it's considered bad practice as you have to overemphasize your own contributions and exaggerate.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The incomplete nature of knowledge is fundamental to science, so considering the proper language to describe it is "theory", even with the most well understood aspects, browbeating about the "facts" is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.
The “it's just a theory trope” is a means used by detractors of climate science, not by climate scientists themselves. Keep in mind, wide-spread skepticism towards the global consensus of climate change is a purely American thing (amongst first-world countries). Psychologists also know that people who opt to believe something else get even more entrenched in their beliefs if they are confronted with facts that refute those beliefs. We need to educate people in their scientific literacy, how to parse scientific claims and understand the validity.

The way you write your posts indicates you aren't really convinced of the scientific consensus (e. g. you criticize the lack of skepticism in the scientific community and point out that “science gets it wrong at times”), and that makes your pivot towards scientists not “selling” their results properly quite disingenuous. For otherwise you'd have structured your argument completely differently.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Today, 08:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm making two separate points.

1) Convincing an opponent is an exercise in salesmanship.
Only when the opponent is being honest. Which they aren't. Most of these people are thinking "This science will lead to regulations that will cost me money to conform to", while saying "I don't think the science is conclusive."

Its the same problem you have in politics and its why everything is so partisan and its really hard to convince people of anything they don't already believe.
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
Today, 08:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Only when the opponent is being honest. Which they aren't.
In general, the opponent is more honest then they are perceived to be.

That the other side can't believe it is one of the reasons there's so much partisanship.
     
 
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 08:41 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.,