Browser-based climate change simulation

I was thinking more along the lines of IUDs

You can't really see sea level rise on a map because most of our developed sea shores are already at least a meter or two above water. It's not going to change the shape of the coastlines near cities or other developed places, which is where it's important. Instead, it's predicted to increase the frequency and severity of flooding.

> You are saying a lot of different, seemingly subtle things, while heavily hedging everything, which makes it super hard to have a meaningful discussion.

"While heavily hedging everything", I suspect, is my unusual writing style, where I explicitly qualify that which is speculative, as being speculative, as opposed to the more common practice of presenting estimates and speculation as cold hard facts. It's a bit concerning that the precise use of language seems to be (here I am speculating, and open to correction) considered somehow inappropriate in a discussion where people are complaining about the discussion not being based on facts.

I would counter that having a meaningful discussion is difficult when people claim to be arguing in good faith, and accuse others of not doing so, but then proceed to completely ignore the core arguments the supposedly poor-faith person makes. (To be clear, you are not one of those people.)

>> Agreed, but this does not logically preclude my concerns that it is possible that [...]

> I mean, if you're talking philosophy here, I obviously agree that this is a logical possibility, but how does that move the conversation forward?

Well, I would say it moves the conversation forward in that:

a) I seem to have been successful in clearing up your speculation that my beliefs are grounded not in conspiracy theory, but in sound logic and epistemology: reality as it actually is, which includes things that are unknown, as opposed to how people like to pretend it is, where there are no unknowns

b) Perhaps now you may be open to consider that "deniers" are not all conspiracy theorists, but may rather be reacting with suspicion to an incredibly complex situation, which then might facilitate you opening up to my larger core idea, that it may be possible that the current gridlock in forming consensus that we are experiencing may be caused not entirely by people misunderstanding or not believing "the science", but due to complex, unseen psychological behaviors (tribalism, revenge, etc) that we all know exist, but seem amazingly reluctant to admit to acknowledging within the context of this and similar discussions

c) I may have been successful for the first time in getting someone to acknowledge that what I say is not false

> What we need to see is evidence one way or the other.

I hope you now see what I am saying: that perhaps this is not true. That a lack of scientific evidence is not what we need (we have overwhelming amounts already), but rather, we need to stop fighting.

> I would suggest to focus on specific points of contention and cite sources. This forces everyone in the discussion to actually go researching those sources in the first place, which should improve the level of dialog.

My point of contention is that people are unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that the core problem is not a misunderstanding of climate science, but a misunderstanding of human psychology, and how to get along. As evidence, I offer interactions in this and prior threads: repeated evidence of no one (prior to you) being willing to address what I actually say, usually via refusal to have a discussion, but when they do reply, addressing not what I say, but instead manufactured strawmen.

I'll post one of my favorite videos of all time:

Why Trump Will Win - Michael Moore Explains https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMm5HfxNXY4

Can you see any possible parallels between the seemingly illogical behavior displayed by people voting for Trump ("against their interests") and the seemingly illogical behavior displayed by people opposing climate change initiatives (also against their interests)? I have a strong feeling that there might be something important here we're missing, but I am not sure. You're welcome to your own opinion on the matter, but the key points I'd like to draw your attention toward are:

- Are you sure? How would you even know (particularly considering no one has studied the matter)?

- What if you're wrong?

I started responding to your GP comment, but I moved it here (and lightly edited/expanded it) to let you know that I see you (though your pivot from "suspicion" and "bias" to "psychology" and "identity" makes me leery).

Without specific cited examples I'm not sure if you're talking primarily about actual research papers, broader research summaries/reports, coverage in dedicated science publications, coverage in the general news outlets, political/interest group reports or talking points, discussion with random science-citing people online, etc. (I get the impression you're talking more about latter than the former examples, but I'm not confident enough to tailor the response in either direction):

In general, people are not great at thinking (even in system 2) or communicating precisely.

Unjustified thinking and bias are hard to tease apart. (I'll stick to Hanlon's razor and avoid focusing on bias--the term tends to impute even though bias can be unconscious.)

Our primary tool for communicating, human language, didn't develop to meet complex communication needs (be they scientific, technical, philosophical, etc). Some concepts are hard or impossible or tedious to communicate in language. Worse, these can get folded into nuanced domain-specific terminology or unstated shared context among practitioners.

Small portions of people are pretty good at thinking, though this is often domain-specific.

Small portions of people are pretty good at communicating, though this can also be both domain and audience specific.

To the point (roughly):

I've seen frustrating examples at each of these levels. It is (roughly) everywhere. (I won't impute, but if you see this in climate science and not everywhere--do investigate why.) Not that I would know where the Overton window is, here--but I get the impression from how you frame this that you think you are further outside of it than I think you are. I wonder if you're seeing (something like?) Dunning-Kruger here--many (but not all) of the people left arguing on the internet about facts and gigatons and global cooling and ivory tower conspiracies may just be identifying at each other.

I assume most people who see through this avoid engaging. I occasionally engage, but rarely head-on. My goal investigate to obliquely+gently give someone who appears to be thoughtful a chance to realize they are in a trench.

In any case, I'm unsure what practical application this realization has (beyond the obvious--lobbing fact-grenades into the other trench doesn't accomplish much). Do you see applicable lessons, here? One lesson can be that the message should come from someone with a lot of identity overlap. I think it's useful, but it takes a while to scale well (for example, you need people willing to risk ostracism and exclusion from groups that are core parts of their identity; people most knowledgable about the science don't have a lot of identity overlap).

Katharine Hayhoe is a decent case study, here. She stays busy, but I don't have a good sense of how readily she can move the needle with skeptics. Either way, her identity doesn't seem to defuse the regular conspiratorial comments on posts/videos about her.

I find the discussion of memes in The Selfish Gene useful here. It's worth a read if you haven't. Considering the "fitness" of individual memes, fellow travellers, and memeplexes as a whole (i.e., their virality, whether they fit in well with or oppose other common memes, how resisitant they are to displacement, etc.) is a good place to start with evaluating how climate change denial slots into people's broader belief systems. Unfortunately, it also underscores that a number of its frequent fellow travellers are fairly "fit" memes.

There are definitely a lot. If you haven't experienced this personally then you must live in a heavily liberal area.