> This appears to be the only important statement in everything that you wrote requiring some kind of response.
Not that I'm surprised, but....really?
How about this: "My point is, I think a perfectly plausible, evidence-based case can be made that what is primarily preventing us from moving forward on this problem is not a misunderstanding of the science (which there definitely is, on both sides), but a misunderstanding of the importance of human psychology."
Are you willing to state an opinion on that (taking into consideration the supporting ideas in my comment)?
> I can say, quite certainly, that this is not the case, but that it is slowly happening, based on other responses I'm seeing.
Here I'm not sure what you're saying exactly.
"that this is not the case" - ok, well if that's the case, could you please answer the question I posed: "From where did the ideas come from, that:"
"but that it is slowly happening, based on other responses I'm seeing" - I'm not sure what this refers to. Could you clarify?
>>> I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding.
>> FWIW, I also happen to harbor this suspicion. How might one actually know whether there is an element of truth to it?
> This is, quite literally, creating a conspiracy from thin air without proof.
No, it is not. You're the one that added the notion of epistemology into the discussion (and kudos for that), but it seems now, you've forgotten that.
I'm not "creating a conspiracy" (I imagine this rhetorical technique has a name, but I know not what it might be), I am asking a question. You seem to believe you are above epistemic soundness. I challenge you to address this.
> Climate science is so unnecessarily controversial at this point, that if any evidence existed that scientists were lying to make more money, business leaders would be touting it at every turn.
Sure, and nothing I said directly contradicts this, I am merely pointing out that we do not have evidence either way that it is "wise career advice" to pursue climate change only from a particular angle, or that there might be a kind of "overton window" in play, to some degree. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Again, I am not saying this is the case, I am simply saying:
a) the conclusive, absolute truth on these matters is unknown
b) a behavior can be observed where climate change advocates seem extremely unwilling to simply acknowledge that some things are unknown
> However, there is plenty of evidence that scientists that deny climate change are in it for the money: https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-ma....
> As a Washington Post article explains, “in the 1990s, oil companies, fossil fuel industry trade groups and their respective PR firms began positioning contrarian scientists such as Willie Soon, William Happer and David Legates as experts whose opinions on climate change should be considered equal and opposite to that of climate scientists.”
> The contrarian voice of these funded-skeptics hides the fact that basically the entire scientific community agrees the crisis is real and caused by humans, promoting the myth of disagreement.
> Do you hold the same opinion of scientists that deny climate change?
I do not subscribe to the beliefs of climate change denying scientists, and not a single thing I wrote suggested that I believe this in the slightest. And yet, here you are concentrating on this, while simultaneously ignoring most everything else I actually wrote.
I will remind you of something else I wrote:
> My point is, I think a perfectly plausible, evidence-based case can be made that what is primarily preventing us from moving forward on this problem is not a misunderstanding of the science (which there definitely is, on both sides), but a misunderstanding of the importance of human psychology. And, I will provocatively (but speculatively) assert that a recurring refusal to even acknowledge this as a valid possibility, is in fact evidence that supports the very theory. My suspicion on why this behavior exists, is that on ~identity-related issues, it is simply human nature to blame one's opponent while absolving oneself of all guilt [1].
> I am worried that once again, my effort at articulating this theory will be completely not understood, or completely ignored (again, behavior that I would assert is suggestive of the very theory), as if my comment didn't even exist. But hey, as I provocatively challenged you at the very start when you claimed you were "determined to understand": "Let's find out.". So, let's, shall we?
Taking those words into consideration, notice what the theme/theory of the actual content of my post was, and notice what the content of your reply was. You ignored most everything I said, and certainly ignored the main idea, even though I clearly pointed out that this is the very behavior I was pointing out. What happened to your "determination to understand"?
As I've already stated: to me, this is extremely interesting. I think something important is going on here.
> Offered evidence, will you change that opinion?
My opinions are always open to change. I am rare in that I will stand and defend my beliefs, and answer any question posed to me without changing the subject. Can you say the same?
> This article might not be definitive proof, but proof of these actions by the fossil fuel industry is widely available. With this information, my theory of epistemology can treat scientists who suggest that Climate Change is happening and human caused is fact, and that those that deny it are most likely disingenuous.
Are you suggesting that untruth on the part of climate-denying scientists is somehow epistemically sound proof that pro-climate-change scientist's science is fact? This seems illogical to me.
> If you don't agree, then it is likely that we cannot share epistimological solidarity.
I don't disagree on that, but I don't think we share epistimological solidarity, because I am extremely concerned with what is known to be true regardless of whose theories it supports, and your concerns seem to be biased.
> IOW, I responded primarily to a statement that is a widespread conspiracy theory, and therefore propaganda, by calling it what it was...
...and also suggesting that because it is "a conspiracy theory" then therefore it is false, with a demonstrated lack of concern for whether such a conclusion is actually known, or knowable.
> not by making assumptions about who you are, and how you think.
I challenge you again to address my question: "From where did the ideas come from, that:"
> I simply made a reply based on what you wrote.
You missed the part where you ignored the majority of my comment, despite me predicting that.
> I, on the other hand, can present a real conspiracy (not propaganda) by pointing out how various industries have disingenuously used media (and thus human emotion and failing human intuition) to argue against human caused climate change.
Once again, which I've never disputed. Why you seem focused on something I've literally not mentioned, while ignoring that which I did mention, is the very behavior I noted in my comment that I find unusual.
> Further, you reference the book "Thinking Fast and Slow", while defending a statement of intuition:
> I also happen to harbor this suspicion
> In response, I gave you the ultimate 'slow thinking' path that I follow myself: education. Until I have that education, then I must fall back on the expertise of others.
Your education didn't contain any proof of my conclusion, but at least you seem to realize that your proof is an appeal to authority.
> Further, I'm extremely aware of the fact that we need the public to buy in, and that we need political will to deal with Climate Change. Extremely, frustratingly, aware.
Are you frustrated enough to actually consider the content of what I wrote in my comment? Because from what you've written here, it seems almost as if you didn't even read it.
Not that I'm surprised, but....really?
How about this: "My point is, I think a perfectly plausible, evidence-based case can be made that what is primarily preventing us from moving forward on this problem is not a misunderstanding of the science (which there definitely is, on both sides), but a misunderstanding of the importance of human psychology."
Are you willing to state an opinion on that (taking into consideration the supporting ideas in my comment)?
> I can say, quite certainly, that this is not the case, but that it is slowly happening, based on other responses I'm seeing.
Here I'm not sure what you're saying exactly.
"that this is not the case" - ok, well if that's the case, could you please answer the question I posed: "From where did the ideas come from, that:"
"but that it is slowly happening, based on other responses I'm seeing" - I'm not sure what this refers to. Could you clarify?
>>> I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding.
>> FWIW, I also happen to harbor this suspicion. How might one actually know whether there is an element of truth to it?
> This is, quite literally, creating a conspiracy from thin air without proof.
No, it is not. You're the one that added the notion of epistemology into the discussion (and kudos for that), but it seems now, you've forgotten that.
I'm not "creating a conspiracy" (I imagine this rhetorical technique has a name, but I know not what it might be), I am asking a question. You seem to believe you are above epistemic soundness. I challenge you to address this.
> Climate science is so unnecessarily controversial at this point, that if any evidence existed that scientists were lying to make more money, business leaders would be touting it at every turn.
Sure, and nothing I said directly contradicts this, I am merely pointing out that we do not have evidence either way that it is "wise career advice" to pursue climate change only from a particular angle, or that there might be a kind of "overton window" in play, to some degree. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Again, I am not saying this is the case, I am simply saying:
a) the conclusive, absolute truth on these matters is unknown
b) a behavior can be observed where climate change advocates seem extremely unwilling to simply acknowledge that some things are unknown
> However, there is plenty of evidence that scientists that deny climate change are in it for the money: https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-ma.... > As a Washington Post article explains, “in the 1990s, oil companies, fossil fuel industry trade groups and their respective PR firms began positioning contrarian scientists such as Willie Soon, William Happer and David Legates as experts whose opinions on climate change should be considered equal and opposite to that of climate scientists.” > The contrarian voice of these funded-skeptics hides the fact that basically the entire scientific community agrees the crisis is real and caused by humans, promoting the myth of disagreement.
> Do you hold the same opinion of scientists that deny climate change?
I do not subscribe to the beliefs of climate change denying scientists, and not a single thing I wrote suggested that I believe this in the slightest. And yet, here you are concentrating on this, while simultaneously ignoring most everything else I actually wrote.
I will remind you of something else I wrote:
> My point is, I think a perfectly plausible, evidence-based case can be made that what is primarily preventing us from moving forward on this problem is not a misunderstanding of the science (which there definitely is, on both sides), but a misunderstanding of the importance of human psychology. And, I will provocatively (but speculatively) assert that a recurring refusal to even acknowledge this as a valid possibility, is in fact evidence that supports the very theory. My suspicion on why this behavior exists, is that on ~identity-related issues, it is simply human nature to blame one's opponent while absolving oneself of all guilt [1].
> I am worried that once again, my effort at articulating this theory will be completely not understood, or completely ignored (again, behavior that I would assert is suggestive of the very theory), as if my comment didn't even exist. But hey, as I provocatively challenged you at the very start when you claimed you were "determined to understand": "Let's find out.". So, let's, shall we?
Taking those words into consideration, notice what the theme/theory of the actual content of my post was, and notice what the content of your reply was. You ignored most everything I said, and certainly ignored the main idea, even though I clearly pointed out that this is the very behavior I was pointing out. What happened to your "determination to understand"?
As I've already stated: to me, this is extremely interesting. I think something important is going on here.
> Offered evidence, will you change that opinion?
My opinions are always open to change. I am rare in that I will stand and defend my beliefs, and answer any question posed to me without changing the subject. Can you say the same?
> This article might not be definitive proof, but proof of these actions by the fossil fuel industry is widely available. With this information, my theory of epistemology can treat scientists who suggest that Climate Change is happening and human caused is fact, and that those that deny it are most likely disingenuous.
Are you suggesting that untruth on the part of climate-denying scientists is somehow epistemically sound proof that pro-climate-change scientist's science is fact? This seems illogical to me.
> If you don't agree, then it is likely that we cannot share epistimological solidarity.
I don't disagree on that, but I don't think we share epistimological solidarity, because I am extremely concerned with what is known to be true regardless of whose theories it supports, and your concerns seem to be biased.
> IOW, I responded primarily to a statement that is a widespread conspiracy theory, and therefore propaganda, by calling it what it was...
...and also suggesting that because it is "a conspiracy theory" then therefore it is false, with a demonstrated lack of concern for whether such a conclusion is actually known, or knowable.
> not by making assumptions about who you are, and how you think.
I challenge you again to address my question: "From where did the ideas come from, that:"
> I simply made a reply based on what you wrote.
You missed the part where you ignored the majority of my comment, despite me predicting that.
> I, on the other hand, can present a real conspiracy (not propaganda) by pointing out how various industries have disingenuously used media (and thus human emotion and failing human intuition) to argue against human caused climate change.
Once again, which I've never disputed. Why you seem focused on something I've literally not mentioned, while ignoring that which I did mention, is the very behavior I noted in my comment that I find unusual.
> Further, you reference the book "Thinking Fast and Slow", while defending a statement of intuition:
> I also happen to harbor this suspicion
> In response, I gave you the ultimate 'slow thinking' path that I follow myself: education. Until I have that education, then I must fall back on the expertise of others.
Your education didn't contain any proof of my conclusion, but at least you seem to realize that your proof is an appeal to authority.
> Further, I'm extremely aware of the fact that we need the public to buy in, and that we need political will to deal with Climate Change. Extremely, frustratingly, aware.
Are you frustrated enough to actually consider the content of what I wrote in my comment? Because from what you've written here, it seems almost as if you didn't even read it.