If you babble about chemtrail or how the government is hiding UFOs or how the lizard-men control the mankind, everyone will call you crazy. If you claim that there was no Holocaust, you can get into jail in some countries and get you into lot of trouble in the others. Yet there are large amount of people, including opinion leaders and politicians who deny the climate change which is equally stupid. Why?
The solution is the backward thinking of the socials. The socials above all wants to feel nice, moral and lovable people because they want to be loved by peers. So their logic isn't forward (X is good so I do X), but backward: "I do X, so X is good". It's related to cognitive dissonance. Sure, in many cases this is just a theoretical distinction as if X is really good, it doesn't matter. However only people above social level are capable of saying "X is bad, but I still do X because it benefits me".
There is no possible "do X" for UFO and chemtrail conspiracies. The believers believe but don't and can't act upon their beliefs. I mean if I truly believe that there is chemtrail, what can I do? Wear gas mask all the time? It does no good since gas masks only protect from chemicals listed on the box of their filter, and the evil government surely uses something else. All I can do is "raise awareness" aka rant.
On the other hand there is a very simple action about the climate: damage it more for profit. Green technologies are more expensive than coal plants or gas drinking cars. If I don't switch green, I save money, while the damage is hitting everyone. Even worse, the climate studies show that we are already behind the point of no return, the climate will change, whatever I do. So why bother?
The point is that it can be a completely rational selfish behavior to keep damaging the climate. However a social person can't say "I keep damaging the climate because that's my interest". That's "evil". Instead, he refuses to believe in the climate change, so he can claim with a straight face "there is nothing wrong with me driving a V8 engine pick-up truck everywhere".
Believe me, if "phobia from poisonous air" would be a legitimate reason to stay at home and get welfare, there would be equally big amount of chemtrail believers as climate change denials.
PS: How can you get positive opinions? posthumously.
The solution is the backward thinking of the socials. The socials above all wants to feel nice, moral and lovable people because they want to be loved by peers. So their logic isn't forward (X is good so I do X), but backward: "I do X, so X is good". It's related to cognitive dissonance. Sure, in many cases this is just a theoretical distinction as if X is really good, it doesn't matter. However only people above social level are capable of saying "X is bad, but I still do X because it benefits me".
There is no possible "do X" for UFO and chemtrail conspiracies. The believers believe but don't and can't act upon their beliefs. I mean if I truly believe that there is chemtrail, what can I do? Wear gas mask all the time? It does no good since gas masks only protect from chemicals listed on the box of their filter, and the evil government surely uses something else. All I can do is "raise awareness" aka rant.
On the other hand there is a very simple action about the climate: damage it more for profit. Green technologies are more expensive than coal plants or gas drinking cars. If I don't switch green, I save money, while the damage is hitting everyone. Even worse, the climate studies show that we are already behind the point of no return, the climate will change, whatever I do. So why bother?
The point is that it can be a completely rational selfish behavior to keep damaging the climate. However a social person can't say "I keep damaging the climate because that's my interest". That's "evil". Instead, he refuses to believe in the climate change, so he can claim with a straight face "there is nothing wrong with me driving a V8 engine pick-up truck everywhere".
Believe me, if "phobia from poisonous air" would be a legitimate reason to stay at home and get welfare, there would be equally big amount of chemtrail believers as climate change denials.
PS: How can you get positive opinions? posthumously.
30 comments:
You'd really do well in Dota2 with your "greedy" attitude towards gaming, muting all allies and enemies is widely considered an effective strategy for gaining ranks. And Dota is much less a clickfest than you might think and more about identifying weak links and making the correct overarching hero/item decisions to compensate or exploit weakness. The horizontal balancing of League I think will lead you to the same conclusions you made 3 years ago.
first we need to clear up the misconceptions. 1: climate change is a fact no one denies it. This in itself is the most disarming fact to start any climate debate about. 2: Man has a direct and dynamic effect on the climate for sake of ease it oddly corresponds nicely with population growth. 3: the idea that we can stop or alter climate change is silly stupid and for Morons and slackers (this is the setup point, you follow this up with the real facts). Since the late 1600's the earth has been in the most stable climate period ever looked at, simply put the earth is way over due for a climate shift. There is a good chance that man made global warming has been forstalling a cyclic ice age, however oddly enough it is also likely to cause a short term ice age (reference the "little ice age"). then you pile on, you can make a claim that 50's and 60's 70's and into the early 80's we had good solid ground data, however with the expansion of BRIC coupled with the fall of eastern Europe and the Soviet union our ability to have decent ground coverage is sadly non verifiable. and example is the fact that 80% of the ground stations in the US (the one place where you would expect good data) are out of acceptable measures. Simply put we have shit for ground coverage and we have crap data (as it managed and controlled by RMT types) from satilites. combine all the above and you shit for science and only general concept that "yes the climate should be changing" For instance "no hockey stick" actually fewer major storms, however this is off set by the identification of storms that 30 years ago would never have been named. Now the real question is what should we do about things? take garbage for instance how do we reduce waste and yet keep products safe? we could prolly save a ton of garbage by not using plastic to protect food just as an example.
There are very few climate change deniers, ones that claim that there is no climate change. Most of the people that are labelled deniers fall into these categories.
1) The IPCC predictions required positive feedback loops that haven't been proven.
2) The Mann historical temperature data and current temperature station data reported by government agencies is manipulated to produce temperatures that aren't there. This is the "Satellite measurements have been flat while ground station data has been increasing." crowd at "Watts Up With That".
3) Global warming is going to happen, and we'd be better off spending money on moving people off the coasts and into safer living situations than trying to fix the climate. That's Bjørn Lomborg, more or less.
4) Finally, the "If this were really a crisis, we'd ground all airplanes immediately and push nuclear power plants for all of our power needs" crowd. These are people that don't like being lectured on lowering their carbon footprint by a bunch of rich folks that just flew on private planes to Paris for a week long conference with parties each night featuring a musical set by Bono or Sting.
Personally, I'm hoping that someone invents a working fusion generator soon, then we can cut out this problem generating power with carbon fuels. Or spray on solar panels and some sort of battery breakthrough to store the power efficiently. Part of me feels like the climate change argument is just a new version of the "too much horse crap in New York" problem. We're arguing about a problem that may never happen because some breakthrough technology makes it all moot.
I think you are missing the point entirely.
The problem isn't "Climate Change", it's over population. "Climate Change" isn't occurring because a handful of rich kids are using too much electricity, It's occurring because billions more humans want food, shelter, and electricity.
"Climate Change" is Overpopulation denial. It's the same twisted logic people use to conclude that "not watering your lawn" will somehow stop a drought condition... No, the rule of thumb that 75% of available water goes to agriculture still applies. You wanna save water? Grow less food.
But overpopulation is not politically approachable, so "Climate Change", it's minor sibling of a problem, is focused on. And of course... in true political fashion, it's used to line the pockets of the already rich. Hegelian Dialectic: Problem... Reaction... Solution.
Here in the US, we are literally decimating all our aquifers on an accelerating basis. And then stupidly subsidizing our factory farm food systems as if we were running out of food. And... we WILL run out of food, when the water runs out. Why? Agricultural exports to save the planet, derp.
The rational problem becomes this: If 100 people are actively destroying the planet just by eating and trying to live, then the efforts of 5 people to stop it are stupid. at least some of those 5 will wake up and just say "screw it, might as well line my pockets."
We, as a race, are literally replacing every other species on the planet with our domesticated animals and plants to support our population.
In America there is also the fringe right that says that 'humans' cannot destroy the planet as the planet was built for them by 'God' and only 'God' can destroy it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_7h08RDYA5E This is the same group that injects billions of dollars into Israel so that the Muslims cannot control the town of Armageddon. http://www.businessinsider.com/battle-armageddon-israel-evangelical-christians-2013-1 Fundamentally, they share many of the same beliefs as radical Muslim groups like ISIS and fund violence against people they claim the bible and God hate. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kaoma-uganda-gays-american-ministers-20140323-story.html These are just a couple of the building blocks of their faith that releases them from America's (government) law (when they aren't claiming the Constitution is just for Christians) and the confines of this mortal coil, as they live for their FUTURE with God, not for today.
"climate change is a fact no one denies it."
Why would you make this claim? It is clearly false, there are still some people who literally believe every other crazy thing Gevlon listed. It is in fact 30-35% of Americans that believe global warming will never happen (or at least not in their lifetime), regardless of cause:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182150/views-climate-change-stable-extreme-winter.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_CLIMATE_CHANGE&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles
Most climate change deniers aren't doing so because of a cognitive dissonance where they try to justify a decision to profit from causing damage. Their opinion is a truly held beliefs.
People are irrational. People form almost random ideas based on their viewpoint (The big dog surprised me, but the rabbit didn't. Therefore dogs must be bad and rabbits are the best pet). Then they absorb "facts" that support their opinion (Rabbits are quiet, dogs bark). If you present someone with evidence that they are mistaken their first impulse will be to argue with you (I have "proof" that rabbits are best. You like dogs so you are obviously wrong). Unless someone is open to accepting a different viewpoint it is almost impossible to convince them that they are wrong with just new evidence (cf. Brexit, Trump and post-liberal politics ignoring of experts in favour of going with passionate feels).
Further evidence will not convince someone who holds an established viewpoint that they are wrong. It actually entrenches their contrary opinion (I am right, you were wrong last time yet you keep trying to show me this wrong stuff. You must be evil and manipulative). The key to broadening someone's viewpoint is to show them how the evidence fits alongside their original observations (Rabbits are nice and quiet. This cat purrs nicely so maybe other animals would make good pets).
Among the thousands of souls involved in the IPCC process, many are not scientists at all. They are economists, bureaucrats, industry representatives, and professional activists.
Additionally, a large number of those who worked on the IPCC report are academics from other disciplines. Some of these people have built careers by speculating on the effect global warming could have on a variety of matters at some time in the distant future.
Most of the outspoken critics of the reports are retired. They no longer rely on funding decisions that might be affected by bad publicity. Also many are from the geological sciences who argue that changes are cyclical. Google Maunder Minimum for one such cycle.
I know nothing about climate (other than maybe I could enjoy life more in warmer one), but I know human nature enough to not trust researcher if his livelihood entirely depends on the results of his research. Nor to trust a politician when he says the eco-taxes I pay are for my own benefit, and then proceeds to spend them on welfare to buy ever more votes.
Very few people deny climate change, i.e. the bare fact that the climate changes over time. This would require denying that there was ever an ice age.
More people deny that mankind's actions have any effect on climate change.
Even more people will deny that mankind's actions have a significant effect on climate change.
Even more people will accept all of the above, yet deny that there should be some massive international program of climate engineering that may not do anything or even cause more problems than it prevents.
Current climate change orthodoxy requires you to believe all of the above and labels you a denier otherwise.
Re-Installed League.
If you want to partner up in any game mode, feel free to add Kurtizzle.
+1 to Slawomir and latest anon
Simply put, there is not sufficient scientific evidence for the kind of climate change that humanity is able to affect (and therefore do something about). At the same time, there are some very vested political and financial interests at stake, because plenty of people and organisations stand to gain (and plenty - to lose, both economically and politically) in the event of climate agenda achieving global success.
@ Slawomir Chmielewski and maxim:
This is total bullshit. Actually there is evidence that human actions have significantly affected climate change.
IT is the combustion of fossil energy that frees trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. It has been proven a very long time ago, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that leeds to a rise in temperature.
The temperature rise began shortly after the industrial revolution happened, a time when mankind started to use coal as fuel and energy source in vast quantities...
Stating that there was no proof to the correlation between man's actions and temperatur rise is outright ignoring scientific facts.
And distrusting a scientist because he makes a living out of science is stupid. It is the same as distrusting a car manufacturer in his ability to produce high quality cars because he makes his living producing cars.
The opposite is actually true. If a scientist applies the scientific methods correctly, his results can always be trusted. Science is foolproof, religion and politics aren't.
The problem is that most people, especially americans and english do not understand science. This is a result of how science is depicted in the media. To them a nerd with a white lab coat technobabbling is a scientist. Anything can be proven/believed if "proven" by a nerd with a white lab coat. Unfortunately or rather fortunately, science does not work like TBBT...
Scaremongering about the climate getting hotter is a pointless endeavor. Humans like it hot. you'll notice that when humans get old and retire they always move towards the equator, where it is hotter. Saying "we have to tax you to keep it cold" is not going to convince anyone. Especially while the believer elites and their giant entourage continue to fly around the world having parties to discuss the climate change, which they could just do over skype, they certainly don't act like they believe it.
Wow. There you go Gevlon, on your own blog, from commenters that seemed perfectly intelligent and reasonable in other threads. They don't think they are denying anything, they think the facts are behind them.
The scientific consensus for man-made climate change is the same as the consensus that cigarettes cause cancer (98% for both). Saying humans have not contributed to climate change is scientifically the same as saying cigarettes don't cause cancer.
And just like with cigarettes, most of the 2% still denying it can be financially tied to the fossil fuel industry. You cannot seriously think that fudging numbers on an underfunded research project is the most profitable way someone with a PhD can spend their time (especially one with apparently no ethics)? Those people could all be making high six figures, or even seven figures, in the private sector.
Here is a nice timeline of global temperatures from XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1732/
Note that the last decade or so is not at all "just like normal" or "what happens naturally." It is a very clear, very sudden swing in global temperatures we have not seen before.
Thanks Gevlon for poking the bear with this issue. I for one have been following the research done on the ratio of pollutants in Greenland, the loss of glacial plains and the rise in sea temperatures and height in the last 20 years. Once I read several articles about that, I switched to Antarctica and the island chains in the Pacific. Using those readings, I followed the worlds tracking of the ozone layer and decided that it was way to coincidental that weather has been more destructive, there is a rapid increase of glacial melt (north and south) and coastal real estate disappearing at an alarming rate over the last decade, all of which jives with the 'we have reached the limit' people claim we are at.
Inspired by Gevlon, I went back to try League of Legends again.
It quickly reminded me why it's a game that should never be played. In 6 games, it showed me all it flaws. Script kiddies on a rampage; wonders of matchmaking, putting two different teams 5 leagues apart against each other; degenerate feeders who would rather lower their pants and bend over than press yes button on surrender; literally 5 years old bug with cooldowns is still there too, I wonder if it's considered a feature by now.
Gevlon, this game cannot be saved. Please stahp.
@Samus
Don't forget that we have only 160 years of scientifically accurate temperature data. 160 year in an ecosystem like the Earth is nothing. It's almost like that at 7am it was 8 C, at 10am it was 9 C, at 12am it's 10 C so that means 20 hours later itt will be 30 C! I know why this analogy has problems but the timeframe is really similar (or worse).
Yes, temperature is rise fast right know. But we don't really now if there is any feedback in the system which can reverse it. Those who are with the global climate change says there isn't but really we know little how such big ecosystem works in reality (although such feedback could be that humanity goes extinct).
I don't say there is no climate change but I also can't be 100% sure that there is because there isn't any long time historical data.
You cannot seriously think that fudging numbers on an underfunded research project is the most profitable way someone with a PhD can spend their time (especially one with apparently no ethics)? Those people could all be making high six figures, or even seven figures, in the private sector.
Someone with THAT PhD? That IS the most profitable thing for them. They don't HAVE private sector options. In fact, if there turns out to be no significant anthropomorphic changes, then we have far, far more PhDs than we need in that field. A LOT of them are suddenly unemployed.
Climatology is not meteorology. They can't go get a job a NOAA or even a private airline predicting weather. (Meterologists, BTW, are a group of scientists that is FULL of "deniers" because they DO understand the system and have to make useful predictions.)
This is an entire field that would have been epicycle-ologists 2000 years ago. If the basic premise isn't supported, they are ALL obsolete. THAT Is a huge incentive for fraud.
@Phelbs: "climatologist" exist only since climate change became a serious topic. It was made serious topic by researchers who didn't look for it. Also, you can get VERY well paying jobs as a climatologist: work for an oil company to gather evidence against it.
Similarly, human-induced climate change is trivial to prove and fraud-free:
Prehistoric CO2 levels strongly correlated with prehistoric temperature and humans emit CO2.
The correlation is a result of thousands of independently uninteresting research. I mean Adam publishes "gas composition of ice bubbles in Devon age" He finds X ppm CO2 among other things. Betty publishes "Prekambrium CO2 % from fern growth speed". Cindy publishes "sea level in the Devon age from sediments in Alabama". None of them had ANYTHING to do with climate change. Then someone comes and makes a chart with Temperature (coming from posts with sea level, tropical sediments) vs CO2 and finds a very strong correlation. The meta-research is simple compilation of the tens of thousands of publications. The only way for this to be a fraud if all these posts are manipulated in a coordinated fashion according to the orders of some hidden mastermind who ... has absolutely no benefit from doing this.
Gevlon, if you think that I t requires coordination for that happen, then you've just said that you no longer believe in the invisible hand of the market.
Anthromorphic climate change is a socialist lie. What you described is a statistical analysis. The dirty secret is that climatologists are TERRIBLE at statistics. That has to be an article of faith for me, because I'm also terrible at statistics -- but the PhD statistician that I know swears by it, and I believe her.
CO2 has some greenhouse effect. It is vastly overstated in the models, and is virtually irrelevant compared to the effects of water vapor (80+% of all greenhouse effect even by THIER admissions) and solar radiation levels. There is no repeatable correlation between CO2 and temp, and there is a ton of cherry picking and "adjusting" to make it come out weakly. There is a huge, undeniable correlation between solar radiation levels and temperature, which is roundly ignored by the people making the AGW models.
@Phelbs: again, the authors of the basic research didn't even know that they are contributing to the climate change research. How could they be influenced?
There is HUGE financial interest in denying climate change. How come that the oil, coal and car companies couldn't hire enough scientists to disprove it?
When no one will listen to them, it doesn't matter if you hire 50 or 5 million.
The few that they hired disproved it (along with plenty of private scientists) and no one listened to them, because they hired them (or didn't but the other side claimed that they did.)
It's like you are showing a conscious refusal to think critically. This is an industry where:
There are billions in research dollars if there is a crisis, and barely millions of there is none;
The prescriptions for solving the crisis just "happen" to align perfectly with socialist goals;
There's no way to clearly show if there is cheating going on (and in fact, all of the actions of the industry --- and yes, it is an industry -- are exactly in line with how a cheater would act; and
Every prediction made by this industry in the last 40 years has utterly failed to materialize. Any physicist with a climatologist's predictive record would be told to start sweeping floors.
This "wisdom" is right up there with "goons are unstoppable." The only reason the myth is there is to keep the ones who started the myth in hard cash.
I don't know what to say that you think 98% of all scientists everywhere in the world are in on some huge conspiracy, where none of the millions of them have revealed the conspiracy (they're all so disciplined!), and only the 2% being paid by the fossil fuel industry are brave enough to stand for truth and justice.
98% sounds good. Do you know what it actually means?
If you ask scientists, "Has the world warmed since 1800?" 98% agree.
If you ask, "is this warming a result of human activity?" that number drops to 75%.
If you ask, "is human activity a significant part of that warming?" it drops to about 60%.
The "studies" that claim to show consensus are even worse. The 2013 study surveyed 11,944 peer reviewed papers. 33% of those papers acknowledged climate change. Only 41 papers (out of almost 12K) actually expressed an opinion. So, if you want the actual peer reviewed support, it is really around 0.3%. The best part? Out of those 41 papers, several of the authors claimed to have been misinterpreted, and say that they don't support the alleged opinion.
97% is as valid as an unweighted killboard in Eve.
Just read the Wikipedia article instead of whatever idiot conservative blog you get your stuff from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
Even if it was only 60% (already incorrect, but let's go with YOUR incorrect numbers anyway), it is still absolutely ludicrous to suggest that more than half of all scientists in the world are lying and part of a huge conspiracy that somehow has not yet been exposed.
After reading Hanson 2007, Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009 (IPCC AR4 climate models) (abridged) and several short papers (via the internet), I have again come to agree that man is directly affecting the climate of this planet.
Hanson was the least impressive with a significant number of random information, charted and never explained. While Hansen argument could be right, but he doesn't seem to explain where he is getting his data from. I can only find vague references to 'Station Data' and 'Land-Ocean' which weigh heavily in the argument. Exactly what data is it he is using? How has it been collected? How is it being adjusted? Remember, GOOD science if testable and repeatable; provide your information so we can run those same scenarios.
Interesting in and of itself, Hanson's papers seems to also be the one most quoted by deniers and frequently sited from agencies that have been identified as being paid by the coal and oil industry.
On your suggestion that there is profit to be made, isn't there always? I do not see alternative energy (wind/solar/geothermal) as winner in this. If the US is not trying to compete against the Chinese in photocell tech, then there is not a significant profit margin to be made. I do see hydro (clean drinking, agriculture and power/construction materials) and nuclear (mineral rights, construction materials and storage/repurposing of spent material) as winners, as finite resources have been debated recently as possible reasons to go to war by several countries around the world.
Last post: 22 September, 2016 00:33
I've never argued conspiracy. That's the socialist argument.
I'm arguing that this is what markets do when there are perverse incentives. The incentives for Climatology are built so that fraud thrives, therefore fraud will thrive without any coordination whatsoever -- the invisible hand.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Why-isn-t-science-better-Look-at-career-9235509.php
(You know, that "conservative blog" the SF Chronicle.
https://gab.ai/RightWingScientist/posts/450258
And I agree with the reality of the unintentional corruption that occurs when 'goals and incentives' are added to research. I would suggest that a significant number of these instances happen in America, as University and Corporate research departments are very profit driven. European researchers tend to have significantly fewer publication requirements and fewer opportunities to publish, than their American counterparts, this is partially because English tends to be the standard for international peer review.
American universities are better at corporate driven science and the European researchers do better at curiosity science. I believe this is a response to private education in American universities being funded by patents, corporate endowments and government contracts, and European universities are funded primarily by the state. So when we are talking about the corruption of the science, I would suggest that America scientists are not the ones which hold water when it comes to the common sense answers to complicated questions because the answer may very well be an agenda based answer.
Last post: 23 September, 2016 03:54
Post a Comment