True for regular science, but only in the long term. Dissenting scientists may be ostracized for many years, only to be eventually proven correct.
Dissenting climate science views exist. But the climate is hard to experiment on, and it will be a long, long time before anything can be proven. And even when it seems about to be proven, it doesn't matter because they say the heat may be hiding in the deep oceans, or in rocks, or wherever else they can think of (maybe on the moon). And then it takes another 5 years to find out that it isn't, and by then the new IPCC report is out, and the warming predictions have been revised down yet again, and "hey, these new predictions haven't been proven to be exaggerated yet..."
...why they're all not only lying but telling the same lie...
Another answer that better follows the discussion is that saying anything else will get them ostracized from their tribe and labeled a "denier", whereas going along with the consensus has zero cost and sometimes large benefits.
...why they're all not only lying but telling the same lie...
Because the whole field of study would disappear and they'd all lose their jobs if climate change wasn't a problem. That's the most obvious answer to the "why?" question.
But they aren't all saying exactly the same thing. It's not a yes or no question. "Change" isn't automatically the same thing as "catastrophic change".
People choose who they trust for various reasons. I might decide not to trust environmentalists or environmental scientists because they don't seem to care about people -- especially people like me.
This doesn't address the "ignorance" question at all.
And there is no evidence that the science of global warming and the push to dispel ignorance/misinformation thereabout are grounded in fear of the "other" (oil companies? the bourgeois? people who like freedom?) and desire to enrich it's "leaders" (Al Gore, I guess?).
Its's more simple hatred rather than fear in this case.
Al Gore has certainly enriched himself. There are lots of solar CEOs and investors who are also cashing in. And environmental NGOs are using global warming to gain wealth and power.
As to your one word example, precisely what "tribal leaders" were the teetotalers secretly trying to enrich by pushing for Prohibition? Everything I've ever seen written about the body of prohibitionist activists indicates their overweening moralizing was firmly grounded in individual, sincerely held, religious and moral beliefs.
I'm curious whose pockets you think they were really trying to line in order to fight the dangerous ignorance of other "tribes"? Are you suggesting they were collectively hoping to benefit Sicilian organized crime families? Or, like, Canadians? Or are all drinkers the "other" in your scenario and so prohibitionists wanted to enrich... local law enforcement? The Bureau of Prohibition (ATF forerunner) within the Bureau of Internal Revenue (IRS forerunner)? Tea companies?
Do you think that law enforcement doesn't push laws to advance their own interests?
But really, what's your point? Prohibition was a good idea because the people pushing it only wanted more power and nominal financial gain for themselves instead of vast ill-gotten wealth? It's a great idea to divide people and have the government bully people for your benefit as long as you're not planning on getting super-rich off it?
There's almost always going to be a "them" in any issue, but that is not your hypothesis.
No, these issues don't always have to be us versus them. We don't have to demonize each other. That's a deliberate choice by the people doing it. Some of them do it for gain -- money and power, others just because that's their nature. The rest of us don't have to go along with it though.
If people would just back off from using government to bully each other and as a mechanism to spend their neighbors' money, we could have a much less divided society.
There is, fundementally an absolute truth under it all. Reality is funny that way in that it cares little for human prevarication. If you're dealing with actual facts, then putting "ignorance" in scae qoutes suggests you do not believe the facts are in fact correct.
I care about people and how they are treated more than whatever facts or absolute truths (no quotation marks, happy?) are used to justify bullying them or otherwise treating them badly.
The tribal identity requires belief in something wrong.
No it doesn't. They can believe something correct and say it's super important. The other tribe is then "ignorant" of how super-duper, world-endingly important it is to be right about this extremely critically important thing.
Their ignorance is a dangerous threat. You must support and empower and enrich your tribal leaders as much as you can, to fight off the other.
The portrayal of people in the media does not affect whether the science is right or wrong.
The correctness of the science isn't necessary or useful to divide the tribes and empower and enrich the leaders. It's a minor concern at best.
If you're talking about observations of the world, and someone else is talking about "them", then those are entirely 2 seperate conversations about 2 entirely separate things. The topic of this article is "them" and their "ignorance".
Virtue signaling and to establish his tribal identity, same reason everyone else says it. If you look into it, you'll probably find that "ignorance" is really more a tribal identity concept to these people rather than anything about knowledge. Their tribe is the one that follows "the good beliefs" vs. the other tribes who are "ignorant" of them.
The key is that the tribes have to be divided and the other tribe is always a dangerous threat. So you must support and empower and enrich your tribal leaders as much as you can, to fight off the other.
Yeah, governments bully people. That's why people like me advocate government bullying should only be used when absolutely necessary - a lot less than it is now.
You know what's cheap and unprocessed? Eggs. Flour. Butter. Tap water. Bulk rice. Bulk beans. Whole chickens. Cheap cuts of beef and bones suitable for soup. Onions. Whatever the vegetables the store has on special this week. Bananas.
Someone who can cook a meal can make nutritious, unprocessed food cheaper than they can buy processed food. Recipes are free.
But it takes work. So nevermind. Just complain instead. It's all everyone else's fault.
... As a result, our population has expanded; conversely, if we undid that change, our population would be millions beyond sustainable... millions of Americans would need to simply die off to stabilize our system....
This nonsense is beyond ridiculous.
Trade is known to have a lot of positive effects: it increases standards of living in almost all cases. But lack of those positive effects is not a death sentence in a rich country. Stop making up nonsense counterfactual stories to scare people -- a.k.a. FUD.
All of these organizations have one thing in common: they don't care about you. They don't care about how this agreement could affect your life. They don't care about individuals, they don't care about neighborhoods, they don't care about children, they don't care about liberty, they don't care about jobs, they don't care about culture, they don't care about America, and they don't care about any other country either.
I'm not even necessarily against the TPP. It seems like it's probably bad because of the secrecy and because it was negotiated by elites, presumably for the benefit of elites. But I haven't read it. I'm against these things being decided based on not caring how they affect people.
Slashdot Mirror
True for regular science, but only in the long term. Dissenting scientists may be ostracized for many years, only to be eventually proven correct.
Dissenting climate science views exist. But the climate is hard to experiment on, and it will be a long, long time before anything can be proven. And even when it seems about to be proven, it doesn't matter because they say the heat may be hiding in the deep oceans, or in rocks, or wherever else they can think of (maybe on the moon). And then it takes another 5 years to find out that it isn't, and by then the new IPCC report is out, and the warming predictions have been revised down yet again, and "hey, these new predictions haven't been proven to be exaggerated yet..."
...why they're all not only lying but telling the same lie...
Another answer that better follows the discussion is that saying anything else will get them ostracized from their tribe and labeled a "denier", whereas going along with the consensus has zero cost and sometimes large benefits.
...why they're all not only lying but telling the same lie...
Because the whole field of study would disappear and they'd all lose their jobs if climate change wasn't a problem. That's the most obvious answer to the "why?" question.
But they aren't all saying exactly the same thing. It's not a yes or no question. "Change" isn't automatically the same thing as "catastrophic change".
People choose who they trust for various reasons. I might decide not to trust environmentalists or environmental scientists because they don't seem to care about people -- especially people like me.
This doesn't address the "ignorance" question at all.
Also, "ignorance" definitely belongs in the scare quotes. Consider 2 positions:
and
Both positions are ignorant of the science. But only one is "ignorant" of "the good beliefs".
How many people really look into how the climate models work and how they correlate with observations over time? Not a high percentage.
And there is no evidence that the science of global warming and the push to dispel ignorance/misinformation thereabout are grounded in fear of the "other" (oil companies? the bourgeois? people who like freedom?) and desire to enrich it's "leaders" (Al Gore, I guess?).
Its's more simple hatred rather than fear in this case.
Al Gore has certainly enriched himself. There are lots of solar CEOs and investors who are also cashing in. And environmental NGOs are using global warming to gain wealth and power.
As to your one word example, precisely what "tribal leaders" were the teetotalers secretly trying to enrich by pushing for Prohibition? Everything I've ever seen written about the body of prohibitionist activists indicates their overweening moralizing was firmly grounded in individual, sincerely held, religious and moral beliefs.
I'm curious whose pockets you think they were really trying to line in order to fight the dangerous ignorance of other "tribes"? Are you suggesting they were collectively hoping to benefit Sicilian organized crime families? Or, like, Canadians? Or are all drinkers the "other" in your scenario and so prohibitionists wanted to enrich... local law enforcement? The Bureau of Prohibition (ATF forerunner) within the Bureau of Internal Revenue (IRS forerunner)? Tea companies?
Do you think that law enforcement doesn't push laws to advance their own interests?
But really, what's your point? Prohibition was a good idea because the people pushing it only wanted more power and nominal financial gain for themselves instead of vast ill-gotten wealth? It's a great idea to divide people and have the government bully people for your benefit as long as you're not planning on getting super-rich off it?
There's almost always going to be a "them" in any issue, but that is not your hypothesis.
No, these issues don't always have to be us versus them. We don't have to demonize each other. That's a deliberate choice by the people doing it. Some of them do it for gain -- money and power, others just because that's their nature. The rest of us don't have to go along with it though.
If people would just back off from using government to bully each other and as a mechanism to spend their neighbors' money, we could have a much less divided society.
There is, fundementally an absolute truth under it all. Reality is funny that way in that it cares little for human prevarication. If you're dealing with actual facts, then putting "ignorance" in scae qoutes suggests you do not believe the facts are in fact correct.
I care about people and how they are treated more than whatever facts or absolute truths (no quotation marks, happy?) are used to justify bullying them or otherwise treating them badly.
Percentage of those people who will actually move: 0.0001%. Every 4 years these people threaten to leave. Stop being drama queens and just go already!
The tribal identity requires belief in something wrong.
No it doesn't. They can believe something correct and say it's super important. The other tribe is then "ignorant" of how super-duper, world-endingly important it is to be right about this extremely critically important thing.
Their ignorance is a dangerous threat. You must support and empower and enrich your tribal leaders as much as you can, to fight off the other.
Example: Prohibition.
The portrayal of people in the media does not affect whether the science is right or wrong.
The correctness of the science isn't necessary or useful to divide the tribes and empower and enrich the leaders. It's a minor concern at best.
If you're talking about observations of the world, and someone else is talking about "them", then those are entirely 2 seperate conversations about 2 entirely separate things. The topic of this article is "them" and their "ignorance".
As soon as literal flat earthers are portrayed as a dangerous threat to "us", I will.
why did he use a religious term of "denier"
Virtue signaling and to establish his tribal identity, same reason everyone else says it. If you look into it, you'll probably find that "ignorance" is really more a tribal identity concept to these people rather than anything about knowledge. Their tribe is the one that follows "the good beliefs" vs. the other tribes who are "ignorant" of them.
The key is that the tribes have to be divided and the other tribe is always a dangerous threat. So you must support and empower and enrich your tribal leaders as much as you can, to fight off the other.
Many of us are already at maximum skeptical. What we need now is a reason to trust anyone about anything.
Yeah, governments bully people. That's why people like me advocate government bullying should only be used when absolutely necessary - a lot less than it is now.
April Fools jokers are assholes. We need a day dedicated to telling people to stop being an asshole.
I like how chickens aren't cheap because they only have nutrients and not enough calories. And then flour is bad because it has calories.
But the absolute best part is "onions aren't food".
You know what's cheap and unprocessed? Eggs. Flour. Butter. Tap water. Bulk rice. Bulk beans. Whole chickens. Cheap cuts of beef and bones suitable for soup. Onions. Whatever the vegetables the store has on special this week. Bananas.
Someone who can cook a meal can make nutritious, unprocessed food cheaper than they can buy processed food. Recipes are free.
But it takes work. So nevermind. Just complain instead. It's all everyone else's fault.
Obviously Western Civilization and Capitalism are to blame for this.
... As a result, our population has expanded; conversely, if we undid that change, our population would be millions beyond sustainable ... millions of Americans would need to simply die off to stabilize our system. ...
This nonsense is beyond ridiculous.
Trade is known to have a lot of positive effects: it increases standards of living in almost all cases. But lack of those positive effects is not a death sentence in a rich country. Stop making up nonsense counterfactual stories to scare people -- a.k.a. FUD.
All of these organizations have one thing in common: they don't care about you. They don't care about how this agreement could affect your life. They don't care about individuals, they don't care about neighborhoods, they don't care about children, they don't care about liberty, they don't care about jobs, they don't care about culture, they don't care about America, and they don't care about any other country either.
I'm not even necessarily against the TPP. It seems like it's probably bad because of the secrecy and because it was negotiated by elites, presumably for the benefit of elites. But I haven't read it. I'm against these things being decided based on not caring how they affect people.
Is "irrelevant" your trigger word or something? Why the complete assholishness? Can't find any small children to scream obscenities at?
It's hard to look them up. There are usually more taxes and fees than they like to tell you about.
I think home phone service usually has more taxes and fees than a wireless service like Project Fi.
Phone lines are taxed. If you actually go to the Fibre Phone link, you will see where it says $10/month plus taxes and fees.
So when someone says a completely different bill for a completely different service has no extra taxes and fees, it's irrelevant.
irrelevant
How much in taxes? $12 more per month?