The presence of any strong uniform ideology makes me extremely skeptical just like political interest does.
I'd summarize as: I assume that strong ideological beliefs or political motives make people irrational, dishonest, and untrustworthy.
Your heuristics utterly failed you, leaving you blind to a devastating truth at a critical moment. While you seem to be on the road to acknowledging the truth about climate change, I can only hope that you are also ready to let go of the flawed reasoning that set you so far back.
I think that if we (as a society) can't find a way to communicate basic truths to all of us, we are probably doomed; There has to be a way for everyone to be able to say "1 + 1 = 2" and not have endless debate about it. Trusting the leaders that we elect is probably part of that equation... but that also means those leaders need to understand these basic truths (as truths) as well.
The climate zealots here are extremely aggressive with the downvoting. And yes the description zealot is fair. Denier is their word for heretic.
Another sign of zealotry is the inability to recognize nuance. For example my pointing out that climate zealots act like zealots is observably true, but their brains will shut down and immediately label me as a “denier” even though I’m entirely agnostic on the subject. I really don’t care. I have better things to spend my intellectual energy on than learning enough to evaluate whatever evidence there is for a problem I can’t solve. But there’s no greater offense to a zealot than saying you consider his particular obsession irrelevant.
Yet another sign of zealotry is an extreme desire for others to publicly affirm one’s beliefs. This should help you understand why gp is poorly received.
Edit: As for why I bothered to post about zealots, it’s because I believe zealotry of all sorts, including climate zealotry, is far more likely to cause mass harm than whatever issue the zealots are obsessed with. For example climate zealots are actually seriously planning to blot out the sun. What could possibly go wrong?
That's a tautology. Perhaps you could explain who exactly is a 'climate zealot', and why, without just painting everyone who doesn't agree with you as one.
Second, persons who are climate zealots are the ones who act like zealots about climate, rather than pornography or any other number of hobbyhorses that zealots obsess over. I think it’s fair to assume most everyone reading this is educated and experienced enough to know what a zealot is. It’s not up to me who is or isn’t a climate zealot, the class is duck typed. So much for that.
Third, I’m not painting people who disagree with me as anything, because there aren’t any people who disagree with me. How exactly does one disagree with someone who has no belief to disagree with?
Edit: Thank you zealots for proving my point.
Once again, that's tautology. He's asking you what actions are those of a zealot. If I recycle, am I zealot? If I say global warming is real, am I zealot? If I sabotage a petroleum refinery, am I zealot? There are degrees to actions.
He knows what he'd define a zealot as, but he wants you to define what it means to you. But you want to dodge the question by saying "it's obvious".
You've also defined anyone downvoting him or you as zealots. But. You could be wrong. I mean, your logic is bad, which is a good reason to downvote you in general. They're not disagreeing with your self-professed non-position on climate change. They're disagreeing with your refusal to engage with others in good faith.
All three of those are entirely orthogonal to whether or not one is a zealot. For example someone could sabotage a petroleum refinery because they’re following military orders without any particular obsession with petroleum. And someone could be a zealot about recycling by being obsessed with it and calling people who think recycling is a waste because China isn’t taking it anymore “wasters” or some other pejorative label and insisting everyone else take recycling as seriously as they do. Perhaps you’ll find looking up “zeal” in your favorite dictionary helpful for understanding what zealotry us.
> I mean, your logic is bad
I’m fairly confident in “A is A” having pragmatic value and uninterested in a model that doesn’t accept that axiom. The correctness of my logic isn’t harmed by assuming my interlocutors can recognize zealotry.
> You've also defined anyone downvoting him or you as zealots.
Now here is an actual logical error: confusing the implication and the consequence or confusing either or both with the equivalence. Observing that zealots will downvote does not mean that all those who downvote are zealots.
Edit: One reliable indicator of a zealot downvote is that other completely unrelated comments from the objectionable author that are still eligible for downvotes will get downvoted at the same time, which I’ve observed in this instance.
Most of us understand what "zeal" is and being condescending isn't doing you any favors.
"A is A" has no value. It's not an axiom, it's a tautology. It is true by virtue of being itself. You're saying "zealots are zealots". Which, ok. But it doesn't tell us what zealots are. Or what you think they are.
That's what makes your logic bad. You've replaced it with tautologies. Bad is bad. Good is good. Zealots are zealots.
And it's not a logical error. It's what you did with your edit. If not all who downvoted you and him are zealots, then you can't use the fact that you were downvoted as proof of zealotry. Which you did. Downvotes only go to like -4 around here. So it's not like it takes a lot. Unless you honestly believe you and him were being upvoted way more. Which you have no evidence for. Besides your claim that "the zealots are after you". Of which the only proof we have of their supposed zealotry is downvoting you and the other guy. So is that what being a climate zealot means to you? It's someone who downvotes you on message boards?
You do not discuss in good faith. And the evidence is in your posts. You think using words like axiom and pragmatic means you're making good points. You're not. Because you apparently don't know what they mean.
You might want to use that edit button yourself. Then again the issue might be a general lack of command of the English language rather than a typographic error, as demonstrated by your demonstrated inability or unwillingness to use a dictionary.
> "A is A" has no value. It's not an axiom, it's a tautology. It is true by virtue of being itself. You're saying "zealots are zealots". Which, ok. But it doesn't tell us what zealots are. Or what you think they are.
Thank you for the succinct demonstration of ignorance of both logic and the purpose of dictionaries. It sounds like you once "lost" a debate and your interlocutor used the word "tautology" and now you think it's some kind of magic I win button.
> And it's not a logical error. It's what you did with your edit. If not all who downvoted you and him are zealots, then you can't use the fact that you were downvoted as proof of zealotry. Which you did. Downvotes only go to like -4 around here.
What? Study some basic first order logic please. Also, consider adding the word "germane" to your lexicon. Oh and work on your reading comprehension.
> Besides your claim that "the zealots are after you".
You do realize that using quotation marks around a fabricated quote is dishonest, don't you? And since I'm feeling charitable, for that matter the word you're looking for is once again "you're." And if you really want to expand your mind look up "gerunds."
> You do not discuss in good faith. And the evidence is in your posts. You think using words like axiom and pragmatic means you're making good points. You're not. Because you apparently don't know what they mean.
Thank you for the case study of a midwit projecting his own intellectual inadequacies on his interlocutor. Sadly, I don't think further discussion with you is going to satisfy my, or anyone's, intellectual curiosity.
I made a simple typo. You can choose to focus on that rather than any substance. It only continues to highlight your unwillingness to engage in good faith. You apparently think saying a lot of words means you're saying a lot.
Just like your obsession with the word "interlocutor". Always use the five dollar word when possible, I guess.
I don't think it's a magic I win button. It is, ironically enough, what it is. Saying something is itself doesn't add to a conversation. If you can't see that, that's your problem.
You think accusing the other side of not using logic is some sort of magic "I win" button however. What I did was basic inference. By noting that being downvoted is proof of zealotry, it stands to reason that zealots must be downvoting you more than the general population. Because if the general population is also downvoting you, then being downvoted can't be evidence of zealotry. You can't have it both ways. If being downvoted is proof of zealotry, then you must be accusing those downvoting you of being zealots. If you're explicitly not doing that and saying downvotes can be coming from anywhere, then being downvoted isn't proof of zealotry. That's basic logic that you're failing.
They were scare quotes. Because your premise is ridiculous. And the word is "your", it's not "you are claim", it is a claim that you are making. I like how you're so eager to jump on any little thing at all, that you over-corrected and made the same mistake yourself.
I mean, no discussion with you is going to satisfy anyone. Unless you're satisfying yourself with your own mental mastubatory fantasy that you're destroying people with "reason and logic".
You still haven't actually responded to anything of substance. You just go on, incorrectly, about what is and is not logic and fail to do the very basic thing asked of you: What, to you, is a climate zealot? Without using the word zealot, without saying it's obvious, or any other dodge. You aren't as opaque as you think you are.
I’ll own my erroneous correction. Its only fair to recognize the exceptional, for you, achievement of making a valid constructive criticism, however trivial.
However your reasoning is otherwise so fallacious I don’t think it’s worth trying to go through the errors. Suffice to say that what you are claiming are inferences are actually, charitably construed, at best enthymemes with a dishonest unstated leg. I’m pleased you don’t find me opaque since I didn’t intend to be and thus I’ll leave it as an exercise for you to identify specific examples, since I don’t see any point in spelling it out further.
Also, I like how an error on your part is "trivial", while an error on mine is reason enough to discard anything I might say.
You "don't think it's worth" the time because you just can't. You've never actually tried to rebut anything anyone says. You just condescendingly call them wrong and the proceed to brag about how logical and smart you are and how you're just cutting down all of your perceived opponents.
But you never actually put in the work.
And if you feel the urge to say something like "No, that's not it", then I would ask: "How do you know?", or "What if we manage to somehow decide and unify on a plan, but the plan is inadequate?"
Whether people like it or not, solving this requires a series of actions that are actually adequate to solve the problem. We all seem to have no problem realizing this at our day jobs, but it seems to me there is something about this problem that downgrades people's ability to execute logic at a high level of comppetency. Perhaps it's that the system is infinitely complex, but it does not appear this way?
They're also pointing out the core inconsistency in his logic. He claims his basis for climate skepticism was that politicians said it and politicians lie. But others pointed out that there were always politicians on both sides of the issue. So if politicians lie and politicians are on both sides of the issue then we have a problem. We can't use politicians as a barometer of truth, either way.
So either his reason for climate skepticism isn't "politicians said it" or his reason for climate skepticism is because "politicians who don't share a political party with me said it". And that's obviously bad. But he can't say that, because it's obviously bad.
At the end of the day, we all have to decide what information sources we will put money behind. None of them are always correct. Science does have an upper hand when done right... but that's a large caveat that even seasoned scientists may not always discern properly. Also, there is a lot of bad science "out there" sometimes funded by competing interests.
None of this is to say that I doubt climate change but certainly I don't buy wholesale into emerging ideas until they have been sussed out a bit. In 1995, the language was still:
> Any human-induced effect on climate will be superimposed on the background "noise" of natural climate variability, which results both from internal fluctuations and from external causes such as solar variability or volcanic eruptions. Detection and attribution studies attempt to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural influences. [1]
Which could be (and was, when politically beneficial) read to mean "we don't have a clear picture."
[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_...
But once again, his reasoning is suspect. He claims scientists are of a certain political bent.
His reason for believing they are of a political bent is the alarm they are raising over climate. Which he doesn't trust because of some politicians making an issue of it.
Don't you see how that's circular? He can't use scientists claim of climate change as evidence of their political bent and then use a perceived political bent as to why he shouldn't trust their judgment on climate.
If you wanted to do read in that way, that's a thing, but they also say in their introduction to "Advancing Our Understanding":
> Global climate change moved to the forefront of the international agenda even before the recent growing confidence that a significant part of the observed global climate change can be attributed to human activities. Governments have agreed on the Climate Convention owing to the plausibility of the scientific arguments and measurements showing significant increases in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Global climate models have been used to project how the climate might change, based on plausible scenarios of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases through the next century.
Which is an acknowledgement that it is happening.
And let's not forget Exxon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...). Who accepted it as fact in the 80s and then actively worked to delay acceptance of it.
So you have to see why it would be difficult to get people fully on board when you have a billion dollar corporation working against you. I mean, api wants to bemoan those darn lying politicians, but Exxon has a very obvious and vested interest in fossil fuel consumption and anything that would cause people to cut back is something they would have motive to fight. But he doesn't mention any oil or gas company at all, does he? For some reason, their objection to climate change doesn't raise one red flag for him at all.
What's more important to me personally in this thread is not “a single person was not always thinking the correct things” but rather, “what lead them to think things counter to established/semi-established science?” All of us are prone to misinformation. By understanding biases we can potentially improve ourselves.
I tend to hold the same thumb-in-the-air view that anytime we think we absolutely know something is true, we are probably missing something fundamental. This is just another way of saying that reality (especially political reality) is almost always more nuanced than “x is good” or “y is bad.”
Finally, the human condition is quite messy. We all operate on partial knowledge of the world. There is no way for any of us to spend enough time+energy to really focus on or even fully grasp all the large and simultaneous issues in the world. It’s why we have organizations that go out and try to boil the problems down for us based on interviews and primary sources. Various governments also have these same kinds of organizations that operate independently and are tailored to help make policy decisions.
My point: it’s possible to quickly analyze our limited sources of information and come to wrong conclusions. api openly accepts that his conclusion changed and speaks about where he thinks he went wrong. In this light, down voting based on his internal experience seems… odd.
He either used a piece information to justify his already held stance. "I don't believe in climate change. This politician says it. Politicians lie. I can continue not believing in it."
Or he allowed certain affiliations of his to dictate which groups he should dismiss despite any actual evidence. "I work in oil and gas/I am a Republican. This would be bad for my industry/Democrats are mostly in support. I shouldn't support it."
Neither of those are good processes. And no one wants to admit to either of them because they are bad. So if something like the above is the reason, it's best to try and claim another.
But enough people are savvy enough to put two and two together.
Why didn't you consider that their "green ideology" comes from their scientific findings. Shouldn't all of our ideologies/beliefs be informed by our understanding of the world?!
Not sure why you’re downvoted so hard. What do you consider the green ideology? I have honestly never heard of such a thing - at least not in something one could describe as a negative thing