> Is it possible that your mind has formed a highly detailed internal model of who I am and what I'm all about, based not entirely on factual observations, but rather based on subconscious heuristic judgements?
This appears to be the only important statement in everything that you wrote requiring some kind of response. I can say, quite certainly, that this is not the case, but that it is slowly happening, based on other responses I'm seeing.
You made a statement about the following:
> > I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding.
> FWIW, I also happen to harbor this suspicion. How might one actually know whether there is an element of truth to it?
This is, quite literally, creating a conspiracy from thin air without proof. Climate science is so unnecessarily controversial at this point, that if any evidence existed that scientists were lying to make more money, business leaders would be touting it at every turn. However, there is plenty of evidence that scientists that deny climate change are in it for the money:
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-ma...
> As a Washington Post article explains, “in the 1990s, oil companies, fossil fuel industry trade groups and their respective PR firms began positioning contrarian scientists such as Willie Soon, William Happer and David Legates as experts whose opinions on climate change should be considered equal and opposite to that of climate scientists.”
> The contrarian voice of these funded-skeptics hides the fact that basically the entire scientific community agrees the crisis is real and caused by humans, promoting the myth of disagreement.
Do you hold the same opinion of scientists that deny climate change? Offered evidence, will you change that opinion? This article might not be definitive proof, but proof of these actions by the fossil fuel industry is widely available. With this information, my theory of epistemology can treat scientists who suggest that Climate Change is happening and human caused is fact, and that those that deny it are most likely disingenuous. If you don't agree, then it is likely that we cannot share epistimological solidarity. It's not an emotional statement, just a statement of fact. You might suggest that I am reaching my conclusion illogically. It might even be true. It doesn't change the fact that our epistemologies differ.
IOW, I responded primarily to a statement that is a widespread conspiracy theory, and therefore propaganda, by calling it what it was, not by making assumptions about who you are, and how you think. I simply made a reply based on what you wrote. I, on the other hand, can present a real conspiracy (not propaganda) by pointing out how various industries have disingenuously used media (and thus human emotion and failing human intuition) to argue against human caused climate change. That actually exists, and is a statement of fact, unless you differ from me in epistemology.
Further, you reference the book "Thinking Fast and Slow", while defending a statement of intuition:
> I also happen to harbor this suspicion
In response, I gave you the ultimate 'slow thinking' path that I follow myself: education. Until I have that education, then I must fall back on the expertise of others.
Further, I'm extremely aware of the fact that we need the public to buy in, and that we need political will to deal with Climate Change. Extremely, frustratingly, aware.