Unfortunately, that says more about American discussion - America has moved beyond left Vs right to reality Vs "alternative facts". For example, climate change denialism, large vaccines cause autism, the election fraud nonsense. Unfortunately, given that opportunistic morons like America's republican party have politicised and denied climate change, I'm sure they'll be a segment of the population that will blame anything, including Greta.
So yes, I do agree with you that the large anti science wing of America wouldn't warm to her, but they never would have.
So yes, I do agree with you that the large anti science wing of America wouldn’t warm to her, but they never would have
I never said such a thing. Nice straw man.
You're right, I apologise I didn't represent your view fairly, we don't fully agree, though I maintain we agree that America hasn't fully embraced Greta.
I disagree that it's that no American politicians warm to her and her loud behaviour (which is what put her in the spotlight). Biden for example said to Trump: "What kind of president bullies a teenager? @realDonaldTrump, you could learn a few things from Greta on what it means to be a leader,”. Doesn't sound like he's too dismissive of Greta's behaviour, does it?
In fact, it's generally down the left/right, truth/fiction party line, since Greta conveniently represents climate change/truth.
her loud behaviour
That’s part of her turn off but Americans in general don’t like others tell us what to do.
Climate change is a complex topic as many people don’t want to admit it’s happening. To me it’s obvious it happening and arguing about the cause is stupid.
Even if it’s not man made, nuclear power, solar power, electric cars, etc all help with the pollution and the environment. Everyone should be for that. It shouldn’t be political. It should be common sense.
That’s why I dont like Greta. She puts the focus on her and make people polarized on the topic. The debate turns to her, rather than the solution.
I’m not sure it’s man made or not. Doesn’t really matter to me. I’d rather live in a world with less pollution and less fracking.
Nobody likes being told what to do, but when it affects others, it unfortunately becomes necessary, even for Americans. For example, if an someone wanted to punch you in the mouth or take your things, they would be told not to do that, as it affects others. If people affect billions of future lives through probably terrible choices, I'll join in telling them what to do. I'm very big on liberty, but your liberty ends where mine begins.
Most reasonable people admit climate change is happening, which is the disconnect with American republicans is (only a quarter consider it to be a major threat), and I think while protesters like Greta can help get the word around generally, there's little way of reaching genuinely unreasonable people.
Climate change and its causes should only really be up for serious debate by climate scientists, as uninformed pundits with bad takes just convince idiots into conclusions which hurt all of us. However, I disagree with you about whether the cause is anthropogenic is important, as a misunderstanding of that truth steers the misinformed towards a resigned apathy that it's not our fault and can't be changed. For the record, the cause is man made and more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree. It should be continually challenged and refined, but by people who have spent their lives studying it at the highest levels.
That said, it's great to hear of your wishes for reduced pollution, safer energy production and cleaner transport, as they are aligned with a better tomorrow.
Most reasonable people admit climate change is happening, which is the disconnect with American republicans is (only a quarter consider it to be a major threat), and I think while protesters like Greta can help get the word around generally, there’s little way of reaching genuinely unreasonable people.
That number is much higher for young Republicans.
It all depends on the wording. When we tell emissions. 50%
For the record, the cause is man made and more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree
And how does that change anything ? It doesn’t.
That's excellent news that younger republicans are more receptive to science - thanks for raising, I'll check that out.
The scientific consensus should change your mind if you're on the fence and scientifically literate - unless you're a climate scientist on the cutting edge of research and know something that 99% of the other climate scientists have got wrong, but haven't quite finished convincing them! I think it's because people misjudge the gap in understanding between a layperson and a climate scientist in ways that almost nobody does in other fields, perhaps because we can all look outside, feel weather and notice difference between seasons. You rarely hear of a layperson disagreeing with experts about microprocessor architecture, consumer electronics, space exploration, air travel, medtech like MRI machines, encryption, GPS - because the gap is understood. Unless you have a very accomplished and relevant history, deferring to scientific consensus is the only educated default.
The scientific consensus should change your mind if you’re on the fence and scientifically literate
Consensus also said homosexuality was a mental illness. Would you have agreed just because the scientist said 99.9% agree? I wouldn’t have.
On any topic, you shouldn’t assume consensus is always right. You should read on the topic and try to understand the science.
Scientist also suggested stupid things like carbon credits. It’s greenwashing.
Whatever we do, it needs to be focused, sustainable and effective. We only get one shot at this to do it right.
No, I like to think I also wouldn't have agreed with consensus on homosexuality's (remember that I don't agree with consensus on eating animals, so I agree that blindly following a majority isn't always the smart move.
However, you've fallen into two very specific traps - let me explain:
A) Homosexuality isn't science, it's morality - and we've seen time and time again that the majority of people often fall on the wrong side of history
B) Science is sometimes wrong, yes. However, we don't know which as lay people are going to be wrong, so it would be as futile as randomly not trusting science on any of the other topics I mentioned (do you think they are doing MRI machines wrong?). On the contrary, anybody can understand and weigh in on moral topics. However, while you can read some pop science articles and listen to opinions about well-studied scientific topics, but you simply don't have the extensive background to be informed enough to contribute anything but noise, doubt and misinformation to the conversation.
A) Homosexuality isn’t science, it’s morality - and we’ve seen time and time again that the majority of people often fall on the wrong side of history
No it’s science. It’s an insult to say psychiatrist isn’t science. It’s a branch of medicine. We deal with mental health issues and when I started medical school that was around the time homosexuality we removed from the DSM which isn’t a morality book.
Margret Sanger pushed abortion to lower the black population due to her belief they were inferior.
That was morality. That was the scientific belief of the time.
I can go on and on but I think you get the point.
You may read pop science but I actually publish im journals. We are not the same.
We're talking at cross purposes. I am absolutely not saying there is no science in the genetics or psychology of homosexuality, I'm saying that opposing the antiquated idea that homosexuality is unacceptable was, and is, a question of morality that requires no science - that anyone can weigh in on. In principle, can you understand where I'm coming from? The difference between a matter of human respect and challenging decades of PhD level research outside of one's field?
If you're actually a published climate scientist, then you are absolutely entitled to have your view listened to, but with all due respect, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't mention that morsel up until now, as that would be kind of key to this discussion. Given that I'm also a sceptical person (though in a different way perhaps), I feel a little doubtful and suspect this is the point where you tell me that your identity and your published work is conveniently secret - but please, tell me I'm wrong. Even in that (sorry, but unlikely) eventuality, that would entitle you to your view, but the other rational laypeople like me would be better served by assuming the correctness of the current scientific consensus until you make significant enough traction to be able to convince your fellow climate scientists.
a question of morality that requires no science
You keep bringing up morality when it's irrelevant. It wasn't a morality discussion but a mental health discussion. That is why consensus creates group think. When you publish, you tweak the known, and you get accolades.
If you’re actually a published climate scientist
No, I publish on psychological topics. I have several friends who publish on climate change but I do not. I mean I could, right now lots of unqualified people are publishing on the topic but I think it's best to stick to your expertise.
My main point is that consent is only a guideline. It shouldn't be the gotcha in a discussion. I don't deny climate change. I think it is most likely manmade at least in some fashion. According to the study that came up with 99.9% they would include me in that number.
At the end of the day, I don't think it matters if it is man made or not. That is just a point for people to argue about and do nothing. What is more important is that we focus on changes that hopefully, make a difference. Not doing anything valuable because people want to focus if it's man made or a natural event ignores that the climate is changing and more rapidly than in the past.
I live in three different states. I can tell you Oregon is much hotter than it used to be. It could be a fluke but it is concerning. Many of my friends don't have AC, not because they can't afford it, but historically, it wasn't ever needed.
Of course morality is important. I would like to think if I had no understanding of psychology, genetics, or any other scientific field, I would still want to weigh in on letting homosexual people live their lives without consequence in times when it was illegal, since wishing punishment upon them for doing no harm to anybody is clearly a question of morality, not science. On most of the things you have said, I understand where you are coming from, but here I simply don't get it - could you elaborate please? Do you understand my perspective?
If you publish on psychological topics, that's great, though clearly not relevant to climate science (except, that I'd expect it'd afford you a better-than-most understanding of the scientific method at least).
Where we disagree, is that I think consensus is the gotcha in a discussion about climate change with non-climate scientists - again, in the same way that it is in any other field. If somebody disagreed with expert consensus on any very complicated technical topic, I'd just think they were simple - you said it best - it's best to stick to your expertise. This doesn't mean it's not OK to form opinions on subjective things, less technical things, or to ask questions about technical fields, but deviating from the default on very technical things is just a very long winded way of being most likely wrong. You'll be right once in a blue moon because experts don't know everything, but statistically not about the thing you deviated on.
I will concede one important point here - you're right that my 99.9% figure isn't very useful at all, since it would indeed include people in the relevant fields, so I've overstated my point by a large amount. A more useful number for my point is 97%, which is the proportion of actively publishing climate scientists who understand it to be man-made (https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/). Again, a big enough proportion for people outside of climate science to form a sensible default of "yes, we're doing it".
As to whether it being man-made is a useful point of argument (aside from helping to signpost people forming opinions outside of their expertise), we'll have to agree to disagree - you believe not, I believe it's important, as it would help us model the outcomes better. For example, if humans weren't causing it, some may further believe that it is inevitable and thus there may be less point in trying to fix it.
In any case, I've enjoyed this so far and no hostility intended - I enjoy talking with people I don't entirely agree with, as it helps me to either cement or change my opinions - at least those for which I feel qualified to deviate from scientific consensus on ;).
Unfortunately, that says more about American discussion - America has moved beyond left Vs right to reality Vs "alternative facts". For example, climate change denialism, large vaccines cause autism, the election fraud nonsense. Unfortunately, given that opportunistic morons like America's republican party have politicised and denied climate change, I'm sure they'll be a segment of the population that will blame anything, including Greta.
So yes, I do agree with you that the large anti science wing of America wouldn't warm to her, but they never would have.
I never said such a thing. Nice straw man.
You're right, I apologise I didn't represent your view fairly, we don't fully agree, though I maintain we agree that America hasn't fully embraced Greta.
I disagree that it's that no American politicians warm to her and her loud behaviour (which is what put her in the spotlight). Biden for example said to Trump: "What kind of president bullies a teenager? @realDonaldTrump, you could learn a few things from Greta on what it means to be a leader,”. Doesn't sound like he's too dismissive of Greta's behaviour, does it?
In fact, it's generally down the left/right, truth/fiction party line, since Greta conveniently represents climate change/truth.
That’s part of her turn off but Americans in general don’t like others tell us what to do.
Climate change is a complex topic as many people don’t want to admit it’s happening. To me it’s obvious it happening and arguing about the cause is stupid.
Even if it’s not man made, nuclear power, solar power, electric cars, etc all help with the pollution and the environment. Everyone should be for that. It shouldn’t be political. It should be common sense.
That’s why I dont like Greta. She puts the focus on her and make people polarized on the topic. The debate turns to her, rather than the solution.
I’m not sure it’s man made or not. Doesn’t really matter to me. I’d rather live in a world with less pollution and less fracking.
Nobody likes being told what to do, but when it affects others, it unfortunately becomes necessary, even for Americans. For example, if an someone wanted to punch you in the mouth or take your things, they would be told not to do that, as it affects others. If people affect billions of future lives through probably terrible choices, I'll join in telling them what to do. I'm very big on liberty, but your liberty ends where mine begins.
Most reasonable people admit climate change is happening, which is the disconnect with American republicans is (only a quarter consider it to be a major threat), and I think while protesters like Greta can help get the word around generally, there's little way of reaching genuinely unreasonable people.
Climate change and its causes should only really be up for serious debate by climate scientists, as uninformed pundits with bad takes just convince idiots into conclusions which hurt all of us. However, I disagree with you about whether the cause is anthropogenic is important, as a misunderstanding of that truth steers the misinformed towards a resigned apathy that it's not our fault and can't be changed. For the record, the cause is man made and more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree. It should be continually challenged and refined, but by people who have spent their lives studying it at the highest levels.
That said, it's great to hear of your wishes for reduced pollution, safer energy production and cleaner transport, as they are aligned with a better tomorrow.
That number is much higher for young Republicans.
It all depends on the wording. When we tell emissions. 50%
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4349373-half-republicans-new-poll-support-biden-push-cut-emissions/amp/
And how does that change anything ? It doesn’t.
That's excellent news that younger republicans are more receptive to science - thanks for raising, I'll check that out.
The scientific consensus should change your mind if you're on the fence and scientifically literate - unless you're a climate scientist on the cutting edge of research and know something that 99% of the other climate scientists have got wrong, but haven't quite finished convincing them! I think it's because people misjudge the gap in understanding between a layperson and a climate scientist in ways that almost nobody does in other fields, perhaps because we can all look outside, feel weather and notice difference between seasons. You rarely hear of a layperson disagreeing with experts about microprocessor architecture, consumer electronics, space exploration, air travel, medtech like MRI machines, encryption, GPS - because the gap is understood. Unless you have a very accomplished and relevant history, deferring to scientific consensus is the only educated default.
Consensus also said homosexuality was a mental illness. Would you have agreed just because the scientist said 99.9% agree? I wouldn’t have.
On any topic, you shouldn’t assume consensus is always right. You should read on the topic and try to understand the science.
Scientist also suggested stupid things like carbon credits. It’s greenwashing.
Whatever we do, it needs to be focused, sustainable and effective. We only get one shot at this to do it right.
No, I like to think I also wouldn't have agreed with consensus on homosexuality's (remember that I don't agree with consensus on eating animals, so I agree that blindly following a majority isn't always the smart move.
However, you've fallen into two very specific traps - let me explain:
A) Homosexuality isn't science, it's morality - and we've seen time and time again that the majority of people often fall on the wrong side of history
B) Science is sometimes wrong, yes. However, we don't know which as lay people are going to be wrong, so it would be as futile as randomly not trusting science on any of the other topics I mentioned (do you think they are doing MRI machines wrong?). On the contrary, anybody can understand and weigh in on moral topics. However, while you can read some pop science articles and listen to opinions about well-studied scientific topics, but you simply don't have the extensive background to be informed enough to contribute anything but noise, doubt and misinformation to the conversation.
No it’s science. It’s an insult to say psychiatrist isn’t science. It’s a branch of medicine. We deal with mental health issues and when I started medical school that was around the time homosexuality we removed from the DSM which isn’t a morality book.
Margret Sanger pushed abortion to lower the black population due to her belief they were inferior.
That was morality. That was the scientific belief of the time.
I can go on and on but I think you get the point.
You may read pop science but I actually publish im journals. We are not the same.
We're talking at cross purposes. I am absolutely not saying there is no science in the genetics or psychology of homosexuality, I'm saying that opposing the antiquated idea that homosexuality is unacceptable was, and is, a question of morality that requires no science - that anyone can weigh in on. In principle, can you understand where I'm coming from? The difference between a matter of human respect and challenging decades of PhD level research outside of one's field?
If you're actually a published climate scientist, then you are absolutely entitled to have your view listened to, but with all due respect, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't mention that morsel up until now, as that would be kind of key to this discussion. Given that I'm also a sceptical person (though in a different way perhaps), I feel a little doubtful and suspect this is the point where you tell me that your identity and your published work is conveniently secret - but please, tell me I'm wrong. Even in that (sorry, but unlikely) eventuality, that would entitle you to your view, but the other rational laypeople like me would be better served by assuming the correctness of the current scientific consensus until you make significant enough traction to be able to convince your fellow climate scientists.
You keep bringing up morality when it's irrelevant. It wasn't a morality discussion but a mental health discussion. That is why consensus creates group think. When you publish, you tweak the known, and you get accolades.
No, I publish on psychological topics. I have several friends who publish on climate change but I do not. I mean I could, right now lots of unqualified people are publishing on the topic but I think it's best to stick to your expertise.
My main point is that consent is only a guideline. It shouldn't be the gotcha in a discussion. I don't deny climate change. I think it is most likely manmade at least in some fashion. According to the study that came up with 99.9% they would include me in that number.
At the end of the day, I don't think it matters if it is man made or not. That is just a point for people to argue about and do nothing. What is more important is that we focus on changes that hopefully, make a difference. Not doing anything valuable because people want to focus if it's man made or a natural event ignores that the climate is changing and more rapidly than in the past.
I live in three different states. I can tell you Oregon is much hotter than it used to be. It could be a fluke but it is concerning. Many of my friends don't have AC, not because they can't afford it, but historically, it wasn't ever needed.
Of course morality is important. I would like to think if I had no understanding of psychology, genetics, or any other scientific field, I would still want to weigh in on letting homosexual people live their lives without consequence in times when it was illegal, since wishing punishment upon them for doing no harm to anybody is clearly a question of morality, not science. On most of the things you have said, I understand where you are coming from, but here I simply don't get it - could you elaborate please? Do you understand my perspective?
If you publish on psychological topics, that's great, though clearly not relevant to climate science (except, that I'd expect it'd afford you a better-than-most understanding of the scientific method at least).
Where we disagree, is that I think consensus is the gotcha in a discussion about climate change with non-climate scientists - again, in the same way that it is in any other field. If somebody disagreed with expert consensus on any very complicated technical topic, I'd just think they were simple - you said it best - it's best to stick to your expertise. This doesn't mean it's not OK to form opinions on subjective things, less technical things, or to ask questions about technical fields, but deviating from the default on very technical things is just a very long winded way of being most likely wrong. You'll be right once in a blue moon because experts don't know everything, but statistically not about the thing you deviated on.
I will concede one important point here - you're right that my 99.9% figure isn't very useful at all, since it would indeed include people in the relevant fields, so I've overstated my point by a large amount. A more useful number for my point is 97%, which is the proportion of actively publishing climate scientists who understand it to be man-made (https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/). Again, a big enough proportion for people outside of climate science to form a sensible default of "yes, we're doing it".
As to whether it being man-made is a useful point of argument (aside from helping to signpost people forming opinions outside of their expertise), we'll have to agree to disagree - you believe not, I believe it's important, as it would help us model the outcomes better. For example, if humans weren't causing it, some may further believe that it is inevitable and thus there may be less point in trying to fix it.
In any case, I've enjoyed this so far and no hostility intended - I enjoy talking with people I don't entirely agree with, as it helps me to either cement or change my opinions - at least those for which I feel qualified to deviate from scientific consensus on ;).