I can’t speak to your experience in the real world or social media but it sounds like you’ve had it rough when the subject is climate change. You responded to Benny explaining his method of engaging with denialists with a very defensive post.
how would you know if my post is coming from a defensive POV ? are you a scientist or a psychologist ?
or are you gonna pull a DJR retort and claim you’ve collated decades worth of posting style to formulate that opinion ?
argh so in here all the climate people merely respond with “science” and “facts” that prove any other belief or pov is wrong, and it’s mostly civilised, gotcha. cos when i think of blitz the immediate words and thoughts that come to mind is civilised discussion about anything and everything.
generally speaking if you merely ask questions about the topic, and you don’t follow the narrative you get labelled a whole bunch of things (tbf that happens on quiet a few topics).
hell i merely posed a question in here, not even about climate change itself, merely about people and their conduct and you have taken it in a way that you believe i’m being defensive, defensive about what i’m not entirely sure, but again seems like because I haven’t fallen in line with the climate change narrative, well I must be defensive but again defensive about what ?
Jeepers.
US$ 56 BILLION or US$6.3 MILLION per hour.
Oil majors are expected to break their own annual records on high prices and soaring demand, pushing their combined take to near $200 billion.
…be on the lookout for similar increases in profitability for Australian oil and gas companies.
I don’t think anyone has been aggressive in responding to you. Your post is just a bit unclear.
Put it this way. I would like to convince you that climate change is real, that investments in renewables are a good idea and something to be excited about. I do not want to make you defensive and disengage.
It is very tiring coming from the climate change science side of the debate trying to rebut pseudoscientific crap from the internet. It is very easy to get frustrated and snarky. From this side of the fence it can feel like arguing with a flat earther. These alternative narratives are very believable, so I empathise with those who have gone down that rabbit hole. I find people tend to wrap their view of climate into their personal identity, so the idea of facing alternative narrative becomes a personal attack. It’s an odd bit of psychology and it’s pretty widespread.
Have a read back through the replies to you and imagine them as if the responses are neutral emotion. I don’t think anyone is jumping down your throat here.
3 Likes
obviously I should clear things up, I didn’t say or intend to imply in here on blitz people have necessarily done it, I meant in general.
you’re right though, no one had been aggressive on this site towards me prior on this subject, as I hadn’t made any comment in this thread, let alone on the issue of climate change itself.
see it’s funny to me,
again is this not what happens with people who believe in climate change ? Is your identity not wrapped up in believing and trying to, as you say convince me (or people in general ) of it ?
Is that not a human nature/behaviour on any subject/person/thing ?
don’t get me wrong I believe that theory about human behaviour cos i’ve lived through it on this site about essendon. I’ve constantly said peoples identity is wrapped up in defending everything essendon does at all cost.
so again is that not merely a human thing ? not a climate denialist thing ?
but your wording actually speaks volumes, whether you realise it or not.
these alternative narratives, which implies climate change is a narrative, it’s merely one that’s adopted by certain people, does it not ?
granted it may just be a slip of the tongue, i mean if you’d have said these alternative theories or realities
but my original post was about this part of your post that I quoted (again it’s about human behaviour)
So again i’ll ask, does this apply to people who believe in climate change as the doom and gloom that it’s sold as ?
Do you believe in anyway shape or form that you, or the “science” and “facts” could be wrong ?
It’s a tricky situation isn’t it.
If you say yes you open yourself up to the “argh gotcha” comments.
If you say no you can’t be wrong, aren’t you just as bad as the climate denialists, and therefore the human behaviour traits you mentioned they go through, you and climate change people also go through ?
FWIW I tend to agree with you about the human behaviour aspect. people/society/groups and their behaviours are generally pretty easy to pick once you know the patterns and cycles they go through.
I’ve also posted in the weight loss thread about how people who struggle to lose weight, some of it can be about losing the identity they’ve come to live with about themselves (subconciously) as they’ve learnt to identify themselves as a fat person and losing the weight is losing themselves…
but i digress.
2 Likes
One of the very real trends in the history of science is the old guard resist change until they die. A new idea will be proven, but the older scientists won’t absorb that evidence. Things like plate tectonics or washing hands to prevent bacterial infection took generations to become universally accepted.
The challenge with climate science is the pseudoscience is often more accessible than the real scientific work. The science is uncomfortable, complex and with error bars that make people instinctively question it.
I’m a scientist by training. I make a point to regularly test my views, put myself into that uncomfortable place. I have changed my views on social issues in the past, benfti on here has been influential on my current world view. My climate views are based off a fair bit of personal research. I try to be skeptical of things that fit my beliefs too easily. I don’t always get it right.
I guess the challenge is to look for scientific rigour in what you align your beliefs to. I don’t have the time to learn everything about climate change, the best I can do is make myself comfortable that the sources I’m listening to are solid. It’s fine to outsource the hard work to legitimate scientists, our job is to check that the sources we trust are actually worth listening to.
So yeah. I believe in the science. Other people believe in the pseudoscience. I don’t see how that makes their beliefs equally valid. In a perfect world people would shift their views if shown the correct information, but that mental shift is a hurdle many can’t overcome. I think our scientific literacy as a culture is rapidly collapsing.
Many interest groups have defended their positions by creating doubt about science. That has created doubt in general about all types of science. The trend makes me a bit depressed to be honest.
5 Likes
You seem defensive. Maybe that’s just your writing style. I don’t really care, good luck.
97% of people that attended a global warming conference agreed that CO2 impacts on global temperature…… what has happened since then is gross exaggerations or out and out lies.
The polar bears are in record numbers, the north west passage is still blocked by ice, Antartica’s ice is not melting, the Penguins are fine, Wall St is not under water and the earth is a lot greener due to increased CO2….all facts that despite the increasing shrills and irrational warnings coming from the global warming worshippers and the dodgy MSM, can’t be dodged for much longer.
I reckon you might have a bingo somewhere here
@Bomber1408 would you actually absorb it if we demonstrated which of those you’re misinformed about?
1 Like
Benny, the messaging on climate change is so extreme, so exaggerated that anything the MSM writes or shows is immediately suspect in my eyes. I repeat, I agree CO2 has some impact on climate. I agree we need alternatives to fossil fuels.
What I don’t agree with is the level of impact, and the race to destroy our economy when we are clearly not ready…yet and the alternative power source aren’t up to it
How sure are you?
Do you have car insurance or home insurance? How much would you invest to cover the risk I’m right?
Here, read this. Thats 180 degrees different to the messaging from the IPCC and MSM clowns:
How is it different?
The article reaffirms the consensus view about Arctic ice melt being largely attributed to man made warming, and offers hypotheses about why Antarctic ice hasn’t follow the same trend.
It also frames the study around the exact models used by the IPCC, so if you personally think those are flawed then you can’t use this article to support your position at all.
Did you actually read and understand the article, or did you just find a headline that you thought would support your argument?
3 Likes
That article doesn’t say what you think it says. It basically says the Arctic sea ice reduction is being accurately modelled, but there is a factor complicating the Antarctic sea ice modelling that hasn’t been identified.
That’s how science works, the model is missing an input and is getting a minor detail wrong. Scientists will be open about it and look for the potential causes, work out what best fits the observations and move forward.
One of the options in that paper is that cold deep waters are being pushed to the surface, which is locally overriding the atmospheric warming. That doesn’t mean global warming doesn’t exist, it means the ocean is complex to model and takes a long time to warm up.
2 Likes
Imagine saying this in a country where 70% of newspapers are part of the Murdoch stable and therefore are flat-out climate deniers (and the AFR is run by an ex-Murdoch guy and doesn’t give a ■■■■ about climate unless it stops the big miners making a buck). Can you give me some examples about all this constant wild exaggeration of climate issues you’ve seen in the Herald Sun in the past, say, couple of years? Or the Australian, the Courier Mail, the Daily Telegraph, etc etc? News.com.au? Or even channel 9, or 7? Because it … just doesn’t happen.
Honestly I have trouble seeing what you’re on about here. The urgency and extremity of the climate crisis is way underreported in most media. If you talk to actual climate scientists, they’re despairing because almost nobody in media will take the matter as seriously as it deserves. It’s like being a soldier while the battle of the Somme is going on and then reading the paper from back home and finding it full of football scores and What King George Wore Today while news of the war is relegated to half a paragraph at the bottom of page 19. The last IPCC report basically said in big red letters ‘we are deep in the ■■■■ as a species unless politicians start taking this seriously very fast’, and because fkg Trump farted or Prince Harry did an interview it was maybe a moderate story for a day or two. A climate scientist literally immolated himself on the steps of the US Supreme Court in protest last year, and it was forgotten in a day. Other than relatively minor online publications like the Guardian, Saturday Paper etc, there’s an utter lack of sustained interest in climate in the Aust media, except where it impacts politics and may lead to exciting leadership challenges.
7 Likes
And also, the article literally talks about the massive destruction of north pole sea ice, which he somehow manages to ignore or gloss over.
2 Likes
If you don’t care why did you comment ? let alone double down on it and post it twice ?
I could say you seem very aggressive in your posts, somewhat passive aggressive also. see we can both throw out labels with very little substance to back it up :).
see this is the odd part of it all. in one instance you say old scientists resist change (cos the sceince and data has changed) but then are depressed about the trend of interest groups creating doubt about science.
would that not be how the position on climate change was achieved to begin with ? doubt of the science that said everything is ok ?
and what you say about doing your own research, is generally why i do enjoy engaging with you, you have at least done some looking into things on most topics, and are not simply regurgitating narratives like alot of people do.
I do however also believe everyone should question everything, even science. science like anything can be brought and can be weaponised.
lets not forget we have just come out the ■■■ end of a pandemic where we were told to trust the science/tists, trust the doctors people in charge etc etc
and anyone who didn’t agree with a science background or a doctorate or any form of medical training, well they were just all quacks who didn’t know a thing and were right wing conspiracy theorists.
you’ve done a similar thing here (as you say with a background in scientific research and ability to DYOR) but apparently anyone who disagrees with the relevant criteria to make them knowledgeable on the topic is considered old and resistant to change or using pseudoscience.
I don’t have scientific background, so like you said i can only do a certain amount of research to a certain level of understanding, and merely have to find people who you think provide value and perceived logic on the topic.
what I am good at though, again with no formal training, is reading people/society/agendas etc etc. so i focus on that aspect of it all.
So i don’t question the science, I question the people who are selling the msg, or the bigger types at the top selling it.
Al gore isn’t a scientist, yet is held up as the bastion of it
bill gates
the WEF
not may scientists in the field of climate there.
greta thumberg has been a propaganda tool of all the above and she doesn’t have high school degree.
the next thing I generally ask is, what are they personally doing to help the environment ?
do they fly passenger jets with the rest of us plebs ? or do they use private jets ?
who’s making money from move/switch to supposed cleaner and renewable energy
and there’s a whole bunch more questions, which i’m guessing by now you’re prolly bored of replying and or reading this haha.
again I focus on the human behaviour and the humans involved. as you point out with scientific fields and resistant to change, in human behavioral terms it’s the opposite, nothing much changes cos the oldies work so well.
what are the best ways to control people ?
divide and conquer
fear
HISTORY is littered with people using those 2 things to push their agendas and narratives. again we are coming out the ■■■ end of a pandemic where those 2 things were pushed on THE WHOLE WORLD and got people to turn on each other over a flu. imagine what they can do with “the world will end”
2 Likes
bro, you don’t understand what you’re reading if that was your takeaway