The problem is that the kind of people that would be convinced by proper graphs and analysis like this are not the kind of people that need convincing on this issue. They are not the type of people who value science, logic, or reason. No matter the evidence, they will place beliefs and unsubstantiated opinions ahead of evidence and in places like the US, where people are often taught that beliefs are equally or more important than evidence and facts, you get a culture of anti-intellectualism that supports policies that hurt the entirety of humanity. We should remind people that beliefs are just opinions and as the old adage goes, opinions are like assholes: everyone's got one and they're not particularly interesting or compelling. They certainly should not be the basis of policy.
USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
151–160 of 247 posts
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, most of the credentialed ones are funded by fossil fuels industries. Either directly or via shells to obscure sources. And so their objectivity is at least questionable. Second, there's support from public relations firms, also clearly funded by fossil fuels industries. It grew out of the "smokers rights" campaign in the early 80s, which was funded by the tobacco industry. And indeed, the "climate-change denia…
> And indeed, the "climate-change denial" campaign is basically a clone of that. It is interesting to note that not only is the campaign a clone, but it is in part headed by the same people [1] who were involved in the tobacco business. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
Thanks. That's a great book. And I ought to have cited it.
And FWIW, Burson-Marsteller has been the lead ad agency.
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
The authority here is insurmountably large and the data is readably accessible. It's like a blind person claiming the sky isn't blue despite the determination of every sighted person. There isn't even a single point of authority here. The determination is made by climate scientists, biologists, ecologists, etc... across multiple independent governments, allies and enemies alike. Argument from authority is meant to av…
The sky isn't blue. Not always anyway. And not from everywhere.
Great point on how significant perspective is.
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
All this may be true, but appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy. You can't just shame people into believing something they don't understand because "smarter" people believe it. It's a shameful failure of communication more than anything else. And I don't understand why people like you don't understand that.
There's little reason to believe many high-profile climate deniers are acting in good faith, especially those employed by think tanks and other PR organisations. As the questions are political, you need rhetoric. As unfortunately as it may be, it should be obvious by now to everyone following politics that being "polite" is not a winning recipe in the game.
> There's little reason to believe many high-profile climate deniers are acting in good faith
These people act as authorities as well. If the alternative is to appeal to another authority, then it seems like choosing not to change opinions is a reasonable course of action for somebody who is already convinced on the basis of authority. The public case for concern about climate change has been marred with incessant exaggeration (for example, lady liberty was supposed to be semi-submerged by now, and the north pole was supposed to be completely free of ice by 2013). The source of many Americans' (and Canadians') skepticism of climate predictions is a continuous outpouring of exaggeration and fabrication, especially on the part of Al Gore (whose film was shown to a significant proportion of Canadian school children [and I imagine, American school children as well] in the oughts).
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you do not like the term "climate deniers", what's your proposal for an appropriate and respectful term or definition to aggregate the people that believe that climate change is not happening?
Nobody on the mainstream sides of the climate debate are claiming the climate isn’t changing. We are claiming that human causes have an effect less significant than the alarmist side claims. Basically, if we all stop running our air conditioner, it isn’t going to have any significant effect on long term global temperatures. Basically we object to the idea that lowering standards of living is a meaningful cure for ris…
Actually “CO2” in the context of climate change discussions shouldnt be seen as the specific gas with the same name. Usually it’s a short hand for CO2e https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#156[deleted]
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#157It's despicable, isn't it? Like, there are climate change deniers that are overly-skeptical or gullible and buy into the mountains of misinformation. And then there are those like Steve Goddard who sit down every day and work their asses off creating said misinformation (check his twitter). Actively manipulating and cherrypicking data to deceive for personal gain (whether it be paychecks, political favor, whatever).…
A fair question: has the climate alarmist side not cherry picked or even used fraudulent data to suit their cause as well? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-e... Our skepticism isn’t about the climate changing, (remember when it was called global warming?) it’s a skepticism about the causes and the degree to which human influence plays a significant role. Any time there is any skepticism at a…
> Given that a large segment of the climate change advocacy also “coincidentally” support far left economic policies as a “remedy,” how can it be a surprise that people like me have a deep skepticism of the whole human-caused global warming debate.
The problem is that the right in the US is mostly denying the problem even exists, so of course all the economic proposals come from the left in this country. This is entirely self inflicted, and is not the case in other countries, where right of center parties mostly accept the reality of AGW and to some extent put in place market-based policies to address it.
I think the only way this works out is for the right to propose their own 'market based' solutions to the problem and contrast them with the 'socialist' solutions that the other tribe pitches (yes it is a strawman argument but that's the only way things seem to get done. The main thing is not to be Right but to be seen to be different from the other side). The problem is they have gone so far down the denial rabbit hole that it is going to take a long time to recover, and will probably take a generation to shift attitudes.
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#158Honest question: Why such vitriol against "climate deniers?" The term "climate denier" is loading with negative connotation just on it's face, and it's rarely used in isolation in an otherwise respectful way. There will always be people that disagree with you about something. Some are honest, some are not. Why be an asshole and treat people poorly and disrespectfully? That makes you as bad or worse than them IMHO. Ev…
Same reason for the vitriol against anti-vax. These are people who are claiming to know better than the vast majority of the scientific community (seriously, it's something like 99%+), despite having little to no expertise in the field. Multiple independent governments, thousands of peer reviewed studies across multiple disciplines, data collected from satellites, billions of dollars across decades of research... but…
You might recall that the primary claim of anti-vaccination folks started with a blind appeal to authority.
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same reason for the vitriol against anti-vax. These are people who are claiming to know better than the vast majority of the scientific community (seriously, it's something like 99%+), despite having little to no expertise in the field. Multiple independent governments, thousands of peer reviewed studies across multiple disciplines, data collected from satellites, billions of dollars across decades of research... but…
All this may be true, but appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy. You can't just shame people into believing something they don't understand because "smarter" people believe it. It's a shameful failure of communication more than anything else. And I don't understand why people like you don't understand that.
It's not an appeal to authority. That would literally be, "I'm a climate scientist, trust me". What's actually happening is: "I'm a climate scientist, trust me, but if you don't, look at this ludicrous amount of data and research gathered/conducted over generations".
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you do not like the term "climate deniers", what's your proposal for an appropriate and respectful term or definition to aggregate the people that believe that climate change is not happening?
Nobody on the mainstream sides of the climate debate are claiming the climate isn’t changing. We are claiming that human causes have an effect less significant than the alarmist side claims. Basically, if we all stop running our air conditioner, it isn’t going to have any significant effect on long term global temperatures. Basically we object to the idea that lowering standards of living is a meaningful cure for ris…
If not CO2, what do you consider pollution which influences climate change?
How do you consider oxygen to be causing climate change?
What would you suggest Humans do to reduce their negative impact on climate change if not "turning off the AC"?