The Reef Ain't Dead

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Freedom of thought and speech are not unlimited and also not amenable to absolutes.

They are also influenced by the integrity of the participants and the truth of their claims. As an example:

...branding everyone with the "denier" label

Who's doing that? Gross exaggeration doesn't help advance your argument.

If not obvious on its face, it's been pointed out countless times, so hard to believe that the negative connotations associated with "denialism" are employed for any reason other than to deter further discussion or debate.

It's a word in English. There's no question that those who claim that it's not happening, or who trivialize it with lazy carbon-copy dismissals, or who repeat the concocted assertions that an entire scientific field is incompetent, or trying to pull a fast one, or pushing some new world order... are engaging in real or feigned denial. If the shoe fits...

The other favorite, of course, is stereotyping large groups of people perceived as the "enemy" based on the actions of a few. This is the very definition of prejudice, and we've already witnessed it here on CF with attempts to paint all conservatives (same as Repubs and climate deniers, right?) based on the actions of the numbskulls and their inciter-in-chief who stormed the US Capitol. Surely we can do better than conflating the vagaries of the different facets of the CC debate with the events of Jan. 6th.

One gross distortion that approaches a lie, and one less egregious misrepresentation.

Working backwards:

• We'd all love to believe that it was just a collection of extreme crackpots who staged the Jan 6 attack, yet even AFTER the attack, TWO-THIRDS of House GOP voted against certifying the election results. They're all "election was stolen" crackpots too? Deliberate misinformation has been rife. Elections, COVID, CC.
• You can't deny that many people of all stripes are lazy or indifferent, and where tribal associations are strong, as in US party affiliation, they simply follow the party line. And the positions re CC most common in the US right are skepticism, indifference and denial - transmitted and retransmitted in their pet 'mainstream' broadcasters and in their echo chambers. Must I include graphs and surveys that back this up?
• show us where I've painted all conservatives (individuals) with this brush. I'm pointing out the malfeasance of the establishment that leads them. Your implied answer that they're ALL genuine skeptics who've weighted the matter of CC carefullly (or are even educationally or temperamentally equipped to do so) is laughable. Many, possibly most are just going along with what they've read or heard from the tribal thought-leaders.

This is even worse than the false "causation" analogies we often hear that try and bestow CC with the same level of scientific certainty as the earth being round or the relationship between smoking and cancer/heart disease. I know many of you (along with many scientists) have the opinion that CC enjoys a similar level of certainty, but it doesn't appear to be an accurate representation of the science as a whole (except maybe part (i)).

I think you should try to back this up with some links. Otherwise, it's just opinion. "Certainty" has been pretty strong among the experts, and gets stronger every year. Unlike a disease, we don't have the luxury of repeatedly studying the full cycle of the problem. There are no spare planets to experiment with.

I remain a firm believer in the "marketplace of ideas" which generally serves as an effective filtering mechanism, and a far more productive one than the transparent attempts we so often see to bully, shame, or ridicule opinions some find intolerable, all under the guise of "defending the science" or "preserving the truth." Which part of the science? [Whose] truth?

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

― Harlan Ellison

In other words, I don't think there's much of an obligation to respond kindly when the offered opinion is insincere, unsupported or unsupportable, or otherwise in bad faith, and I think most of us can tell a sincere opinion from the aforementioned. Better people than me do respond more generously than I often do to that sort of poster. I'm not perfect.

I also believe some opinions should never be tolerated. For example, it's ALWAYS ok to punch a Nazi. Every time.

It's pretty obvious what's going on when a single poster with well known partisan leanings proposes what type of "conservative" is worthy of participating without being subjected to harassment.

Tell us what's going on, please. Otherwise this is just more distortion and misrepresentation.

It's this sort of presumptuousness and conceit which creates the strife, not so much the differing opinions themselves.

Mmmm, no... Willful ignorance or dismissal of a serious problem, and smearing a branch of science, are both very offensive, no matter how nicely they're presented.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

Actually, I think you're blurring lines here, but in the abstract and as stated I'd generally agree. But that shouldn't be used as an excuse for simple intolerance for opinions one disagrees with, something which is becoming increasingly in vogue these days.

Freedom of thought and speech are not unlimited and also not amenable to absolutes. When applied to the CC debate, we're dealing with an issue that even its proponents largely admit is an unsettled area of science. Even if we assume that (i) AGW is happening, it's mere existence fails to rise to the same level of concern unless it's likely to have (ii) negative impacts, which in turn will require (iii) serious remedies to address the anticipated harm. By branding everyone with the "denier" label, you're simply deterring a large number people who, for e.g., may agree on (i) and maybe even (ii), but are not convinced that the (iii) remedies are commensurate with the potential impact. If not obvious on its face, it's been pointed out countless times, so hard to believe that the negative connotations associated with "denialism" are employed for any reason other than to deter further discussion or debate.

That's just one of many examples of the type of intolerance on full display. The other favorite, of course, is stereotyping large groups of people perceived as the "enemy" based on the actions of a few. This is the very definition of prejudice, and we've already witnessed it here on CF with attempts to paint all conservatives (same as Repubs and climate deniers, right?) based on the actions of the numbskulls and their inciter-in-chief who stormed the US Capitol. Surely we can do better than conflating the vagaries of the different facets of the CC debate with the events of Jan. 6th. This is even worse than the false "causation" analogies we often hear that try and bestow CC with the same level of scientific certainty as the earth being round or the relationship between smoking and cancer/heart disease. I know many of you (along with many scientists) have the opinion that CC enjoys a similar level of certainty, but it doesn't appear to be an accurate representation of the science as a whole (except maybe part (i)).

I remain a firm believer in the "marketplace of ideas" which generally serves as an effective filtering mechanism, and a far more productive one than the transparent attempts we so often see to bully, shame, or ridicule opinions some find intolerable, all under the guise of "defending the science" or "preserving the truth." Which part of the science? Who's truth? It's pretty obvious what's going on when a single poster with well known partisan leanings proposes what type of "conservative" is worthy of participating without being subjected to harassment. It's this sort of presumptuousness and conceit which creates the strife, not so much the differing opinions themselves.

The fundamental problem you are facing is that you are endorsing ideas/notions/conclusions that are contrary to an overwhelming scientific consensus. In the 'marketplace of ideas', they are not all of the same value. When you do adopt such a position, you really have to expect to get a lot of static for it. If that is your position, you need to bear up under that burden.

We really should be discussing the role of AGW/ACC & the GBR. Would you please cease and desist with the victimhood shtick?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

The fundamental problem you are facing is that you are endorsing ideas/notions/conclusions that are contrary to an overwhelming scientific consensus. In the 'marketplace of ideas', they are not all of the same value. When you do adopt such a position, you really have to expect to get a lot of static for it. If that is your position, you need to bear up under that burden.

Which ideas/notions/conclusions would that be? We just had a little review of this and it wasn't all too clear. Which part of climate science would you characterize as "settled," for example, along the lines of the oft-repeated analogies of scientific truth and certainty? I'm good with pushback, in fact I think it's essential. What I object to is intolerance, which I believe this is. But I'm open to whatever ideas you believe aren't worthy of the marketplace.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

Which ideas/notions/conclusions would that be? We just had a little review of this and it wasn't all too clear. Which part of climate science would you characterize as "settled," for example, along the lines of the oft-repeated analogies of scientific truth and certainty?

If I adopt the generally accepted current model of AGW/ACC, the special theory of relativity, that HIV causes AIDS, etc. I don't have to justify it. It is you, the objector (or denier, or whatever), who has the burden to demonstrate what you do not accept, why you don't accept it, and a model that better explains the available observations. These are not flimsy, hypotheticals that may or may not be true. These are theoretically robust models of reality buttressed by a mountain of data.

Here is a list of central assertions, pretty similar to that floated by GordMay a few days back:

The current scientific consensus is that:
1. Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.
2. Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
3. Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
4. People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.

I accept all four. If you reject one or more, please explain to us how the overall mass of data, simulations, calculations/projections don't support any one or more of these. And you don't get to cherry pick a study or two - that is called 'data selection' and it is a form of scientific misconduct.
This is how science works and (spoiler alert) you won't be able to do this. Why not? Because there is no rational, scientifically valid path for you to take. You just don't have a scientific leg to stand on. I am pretty sure you don't have a better model for these and I would be my last dollar that you can't muster a body of data that would even come within an order of magnitude of the data that support the consensus.
I appreciate that you may not like the implications of any of the four of these things - I suspect few of us do. They may conflict with your underlying values or personal philosophy of life. Your dislike and even anger that some of them are in fact the consensus is valid and to be respected. But that in no way impugns their validity.

[boatman61]

[QUOTE=lestersails;3328489]If I adopt the generally accepted current model of AGW/ACC, the special theory of relativity, that HIV causes AIDS, etc. I don't have to justify it. It is you, the objector (or denier, or whatever), who has the burden to demonstrate what you do not accept, why you don't accept it, and a model that better explains the available observations. These are not flimsy, hypotheticals that may or may not be true. These are theoretically robust models of reality buttressed by a mountain of data. /QUOTE]

Does HIV really cause AIDS?

https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2...not-cause-aids

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0827141911.htm

[lestersails]

[QUOTE=boatman61;3328515]

Originally Posted by lestersails

If I adopt the generally accepted current model of AGW/ACC, the special theory of relativity, that HIV causes AIDS, etc. I don't have to justify it. It is you, the objector (or denier, or whatever), who has the burden to demonstrate what you do not accept, why you don't accept it, and a model that better explains the available observations. These are not flimsy, hypotheticals that may or may not be true. These are theoretically robust models of reality buttressed by a mountain of data. /QUOTE]

Does HIV really cause AIDS?

https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2...not-cause-aids

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0827141911.htm

Pretty hilarious stuff boatman! "HIV particles do not cause AIDS, our own immune cells do" Riiiiiight, I'm pretty sure I've heard something like that before. Wait, I remember: "The bullet doesn't kill you, it's the hole".

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

If I adopt the generally accepted current model of AGW/ACC, the special theory of relativity, that HIV causes AIDS, etc. I don't have to justify it. It is you, the objector (or denier, or whatever), who has the burden to demonstrate what you do not accept, why you don't accept it, and a model that better explains the available observations. These are not flimsy, hypotheticals that may or may not be true. These are theoretically robust models of reality buttressed by a mountain of data.

Here is a list of central assertions, pretty similar to that floated by GordMay a few days back:

The current scientific consensus is that:
1. Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.
2. Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
3. Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
4. People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.

I accept all four. If you reject one or more, please explain to us how the overall mass of data, simulations, calculations/projections don't support any one or more of these. And you don't get to cherry pick a study or two - that is called 'data selection' and it is a form of scientific misconduct.
This is how science works and (spoiler alert) you won't be able to do this. Why not? Because there is no rational, scientifically valid path for you to take. You just don't have a scientific leg to stand on. I am pretty sure you don't have a better model for these and I would be my last dollar that you can't muster a body of data that would even come within an order of magnitude of the data that support the consensus.
I appreciate that you may not like the implications of any of the four of these things - I suspect few of us do. They may conflict with your underlying values or personal philosophy of life. Your dislike and even anger that some of them are in fact the consensus is valid and to be respected. But that in no way impugns their validity.

I applaud your manner of expressing absolute confidence which I'm sure is sincerely held, but if your test for burden shifting is the level of certainty you attempt to analogize to then you are mistaken. It's not about "mountains of data" since none of the actual data is disputed, only its interpretation. It's not about believing in the (selectively chosen) "science" since the only component of AGW that appears to enjoy broad scientific consensus doesn't even appear on your list. As for the modeling, it's accuracy has a history of being quite controversial within the science community, in part over difficulty establishing baselines. One can always find research and studies which support their particular position, but I don't think it enjoys the level of certainty you and others would like it to. I would encourage you to do some (more objective) research into this.

But most importantly, and even if we assume the accuracy of (1) & (2) on your list, there is hardly the level of scientific certainly on (3) & (4) that you profess. This is critical, since if you want to build the level of public consensus needed to convince people to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels (via taxation or otherwise), you do in fact carry the burden of supporting it with sufficient scientific certainty that says the impacts from AGW will be severe enough to justify a hit on their standard of living and, for lower income people, potential impoverishment. Otherwise you'll have the "yellow jackets" of France back in the streets, and only encourage people who are about done with simply trusting the word of others who arrogantly claim an undeserved monopoly on what's good for them. Imo, the recent surge in so-called "cancel culture" looks like a desperate attempt to achieve through suppression, shaming and in some cases coercion what couldn't be achieved through persuasion and therefore responsible means. IOW, once people resort to derogatory labels and derision, the argument has been lost.

It's a shame since, as has been pointed out, there are plenty of good reasons to wean ourselves off fossil fuels which much of the public is likely onboard with. It just so happens, however, that CC is the most divisive and at the same time seductive for its proponents, and for both those reasons attracts most of the attention, money, and votes for elected officials. It also serves as a convenient proxy for those with a sense of moral superiority, extreme partisanship, and the age-old human need to dictate and control what others think and do. In short, there are many complex reasons why people resist the prevailing dogma, and blaming it on scientific ignorance (among many other irrelevant and divisive factors) is a grossly simplistic (but convenient) fallacy that serves no productive end. Imho that is . . . .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... I also believe some opinions should never be tolerated. For example, it's ALWAYS ok to punch a Nazi. Every time...

I know it's a huge digression, but ...
UN chief urges global alliance to counter rise of neo-Nazis
The secretary-general of the United Nations has urged coordinated global action to build an alliance against the growth and spread of neo-Nazism and white supremacy, and the resurgence of xenophobia, anti-Semitism and hate speech sparked partly by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Antonio Guterres made the appeal on Monday at the annual Park East Synagogue and the UN International Holocaust Remembrance Service marking Wednesday’s 76th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, held virtually this year because of COVID-19.
He also urged international action “to fight propaganda and disinformation”, and called for stepped-up education on Nazi actions during World War II, stressing that nearly two-thirds of young people in the United States do not know that six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust.
“The continued rise of white supremacy and neo-Nazi ideology must be seen in the context of a global attack on truth that has reduced the role of science and fact-based analysis in public life,” he said.
See ➥ https://twitter.com/i/status/1353868734549651456

[aqfishing]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I know it's a huge digression, but ...
UN chief urges global alliance to counter rise of neo-Nazis
The secretary-general of the United Nations has urged coordinated global action to build an alliance against the growth and spread of neo-Nazism and white supremacy, and the resurgence of xenophobia, anti-Semitism and hate speech sparked partly by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Antonio Guterres made the appeal on Monday at the annual Park East Synagogue and the UN International Holocaust Remembrance Service marking Wednesday’s 76th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, held virtually this year because of COVID-19.
He also urged international action “to fight propaganda and disinformation”, and called for stepped-up education on Nazi actions during World War II, stressing that nearly two-thirds of young people in the United States do not know that six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust.
“The continued rise of white supremacy and neo-Nazi ideology must be seen in the context of a global attack on truth that has reduced the role of science and fact-based analysis in public life,” he said.
See ➥ https://twitter.com/i/status/1353868734549651456

What about the rise of Islamic extremists. In fact any group who shows intolerance to other races, groups or religions.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by aqfishing

What about the rise of Islamic extremists. In fact any group who shows intolerance to other races, groups or religions.

Well, Antonio Guterres made the appeal on at the annual Park East Synagogue and the UN International Holocaust Remembrance Service marking Wednesday’s 76th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp.
What did you want him to focus on? Maybe he should have just quoted the CF's "be nice" policy.

[boatman61]

[QUOTE=lestersails;3328519]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Pretty hilarious stuff boatman! "HIV particles do not cause AIDS, our own immune cells do" Riiiiiight, I'm pretty sure I've heard something like that before. Wait, I remember: "The bullet doesn't kill you, it's the hole".

I try to please..
Just an example of 'scientific studies' and links you asked for.. they just don't agree with your opinion.. welcome to denialism..

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by aqfishing

What about the rise of Islamic extremists. In fact any group who shows intolerance to other races, groups or religions.

They are not a threat to the Wests political system yet..
Populist politics and Nationalism is.. even rising in the normally compliant population of Portugal who are growing tired of the old school hierarchy.

Lawyer and former TV soccer pundit André Ventura leads a right-wing populist party called CHEGA! (ENOUGH!), founded in 2019. Nobody expects him to win on Sunday, as he is polling around 11% compared with more than 60% for incumbent Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa. Even so, Ventura, 37, could conceivably place second among the seven candidates, drawing a level of support that until recently was unthinkable and sending a shudder through Portuguese politics.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by lestersails

If I adopt the generally accepted current model of AGW/ACC, the special theory of relativity, that HIV causes AIDS, etc. I don't have to justify it. It is you, the objector (or denier, or whatever), who has the burden to demonstrate what you do not accept, why you don't accept it, and a model that better explains the available observations. These are not flimsy, hypotheticals that may or may not be true. These are theoretically robust models of reality buttressed by a mountain of data.

Here is a list of central assertions, pretty similar to that floated by GordMay a few days back:

The current scientific consensus is that:
1. Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.
2. Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
3. Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
4. People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.

I accept all four. If you reject one or more, please explain to us how the overall mass of data, simulations, calculations/projections don't support any one or more of these. And you don't get to cherry pick a study or two - that is called 'data selection' and it is a form of scientific misconduct.
This is how science works and (spoiler alert) you won't be able to do this. Why not? Because there is no rational, scientifically valid path for you to take. You just don't have a scientific leg to stand on. I am pretty sure you don't have a better model for these and I would be my last dollar that you can't muster a body of data that would even come within an order of magnitude of the data that support the consensus.
I appreciate that you may not like the implications of any of the four of these things - I suspect few of us do. They may conflict with your underlying values or personal philosophy of life. Your dislike and even anger that some of them are in fact the consensus is valid and to be respected. But that in no way impugns their validity.

You know, we're a quarter of a century into the global warming scare and nothing bad has really happened. Despite the cacophony of doomsayer cries, the GBR isn't dead, the poles haven't melted, crops haven't failed, wars driven by climate change haven't eventuated etcetera etcetera. Nothing. Nada. Zip.


In fact, by most metrics, the human race is in a far better position than it was twenty five years ago, and it can be very well argued that had we put the brakes on cheap energy at the very first insistence, the human populations of the globe would actually be worse off rather than better off compared to that which we currently enjoy.


It seems it's pretty easy to forecast doom and gloom 10, 20, 30, 50 or 100 years into the future but of the many theories banded around on the alleged consequences of climate change, I can't recall reading one that includes a "candle is brightest just before it flames out" scenario. The usual shtick is an exponential descent into Armageddon and this doesn't quite seem to align with actual history.



Maybe, just maybe, a warming world aint that big of a deal in the big picture.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

He also urged international action “to fight propaganda and disinformation”, and called for stepped-up education on Nazi actions during World War II, stressing that nearly two-thirds of young people in the United States do not know that six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust.

It's also a safe bet that at least 2/3 of those same American young people associate "denialism" with the CC movement and not with those who deny the Holocaust. Also "propaganda and disinformation?" Is it even worth distinguishing or just wiser to play it straight with the public?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by boatman61

They are not a threat to the Wests political system yet..
Populist politics and Nationalism is.. even rising in the normally compliant population of Portugal who are growing tired of the old school hierarchy.

Lawyer and former TV soccer pundit André Ventura leads a right-wing populist party called CHEGA! (ENOUGH!), founded in 2019. Nobody expects him to win on Sunday, as he is polling around 11% compared with more than 60% for incumbent Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa. Even so, Ventura, 37, could conceivably place second among the seven candidates, drawing a level of support that until recently was unthinkable and sending a shudder through Portuguese politics.

Everyone's so busy finding enemies and assigning blame they don't seem to take the time to understand why these extremist movements -- from the Right & the Left -- actually gain popularity and power. Everything's a reaction to what came before, and extremism simply breeds more of the same from the opposite side. That's why democracies can only survive through popular consent based on compromise and moderation. The latter are hardly quaint, idealistic goals but actual necessities.