The Next Decade Could Be Even Worse

[Theodarzna]

And you can't have a meaningful debate if people are rejecting evidence that has been peer reviewed by scientists. How can you have a debate on the political questions about how to address climate change for example, when there are still people who reject the evidence of humans having an impact or that climate change is even happening?

Sure, all humans have self-interest but the scientific method is a self-correcting process to gain information about the world around us. It doesn't matter what political views a scientist has, all that matters is if their claims are testable, verifiable and repeatable.

People, In my experience, reject evidence because people such as Liberals tend to recite evidence as a short cut to policy. "Trust the Experts" is some incantation to avoid the political questions. Thus people reject the evidence because why would they trust the experts have THEIR interests at heart? I've had a lot of very good conversations on Climate Change and the running thread isn't a denial of mankind terraforming our own atmosphere, but more a complete lack of trust that the policy prescriptions will be anything good for their lives. And on that, they are generally correct in that assessment. The Rightoid answer to the Liberals trying to depoliticize the topic via "Trust the Experts!" is to simply themselves sidestep by stating its all a hoax. Both are acts of de-politicization.

The Scientific Method doesn't answer policy questions. A scientist can tell me how much of a chemical is in the sky or if a rock is made of silicon or iron, they aren't going to have a scientific, or objectively true, policy prescription. Because that is what you are angling for with this "Trust the experts" schtick. A way to describe a policy platform as having "No alternative" because its just simply a perfect and only valid answer by appealing to some non-political authority. But that is as I've said merely de-politicization.

- - - Updated - - -

Those were largely pushed as solutions by economists.

Well there you have it, you at last are admitting that "Expert" comes in many stripes and colors.

[wunksta]

People, In my experience, reject evidence because people such as Liberals tend to recite evidence as a short cut to policy. "Trust the Experts" is some incantation to avoid the political questions. Thus people reject the evidence because why would they trust the experts have THEIR interests at heart? I've had a lot of very good conversations on Climate Change and the running thread isn't a denial of mankind terraforming our own atmosphere, but more a complete lack of trust that the policy prescriptions will be anything good for their lives. And on that, they are generally correct in that assessment. The Rightoid answer to the Liberals trying to depoliticize the topic via "Trust the Experts!" is to simply themselves sidestep by stating its all a hoax. Both are acts of de-politicization.

That may be your experience but it's certainly not mine. I've debated with a lot of people about climate change over the years and the main argument was that it wasn't happening. Only recently has it turned into 'it's happening but it's not our fault'. Now some are saying, 'ok it's our fault but there's no alternative'.

We do need to find solutions that work for everyone and it doesn't just fall on individuals to make change. I'm really lost at what you are trying to argue here.

[Howel]

You are the one initially stating I need to be working with these "moderates" as you term it, because you are viewing things as a spectrum.

Yeah, that's how that works when one wants to expand the political spectrum, you try and pull at those closest, in this case moderates. Unless you think that calling everyone on here, fake leftists, will land you conservative votes for universal healthcare. Because that would be a bold strategy, cotton!

Or revolution, but that doesn't have a particularly great track record.

[Theodarzna]

That may be your experience but it's certainly not mine. I've debated with a lot of people about climate change over the years and the main argument was that it wasn't happening. Only recently has it turned into 'it's happening but it's not our fault'. Now some are saying, 'ok it's our fault but there's no alternative'.

We do need to find solutions that work for everyone and it doesn't just fall on individuals to make change. I'm really lost at what you are trying to argue here.

That could be a number of reasons, you might be coming at them as merely another evangelist for the DNC, here to correct the unruly savages whom haven't yet adopted the 'Good Team'. I've never myself seen an out an out Liberal manage to have these discussions, generally I come at those discussions with the idea and position that the person I'm talking to has their reasons and that they are valid and I'm mostly just hearing them out without then subjecting them to a hectoring by me. But you know, I'm not a Liberal, I'm not trying to win converts to to a consumer product/political party.

The 'Our Fault' should elicit from you a "Yes, correct it isn't YOUR fault" because it just plain isn't that persons fault. What they reject is the Neo-Liberal framing of this as an individual failing and a case of personal responsibility, and them having to "act better/be better" or some other ridiculous shibboleth. Their concern is that they will be immiserated, or to quote some of them "Living alone, in a pod, eating bugs as a wage slave". Perhaps my success is owed to me not trying to convince them its their fault or their responsibility to solve it.

[wunksta]

That could be a number of reasons, you might be coming at them as merely another evangelist for the DNC, here to correct the unruly savages whom haven't yet adopted the 'Good Team'. I've never myself seen an out an out Liberal manage to have these discussions, generally I come at those discussions with the idea and position that the person I'm talking to has their reasons and that they are valid and I'm mostly just hearing them out without then subjecting them to a hectoring by me. But you know, I'm not a Liberal, I'm not trying to win converts to to a consumer product/political party.

See, I think this is the problem. Climate change isn't a consumer product or political party.

[Theodarzna]

See, I think this is the problem. Climate change isn't a consumer product or political party.

What we do about it is however a political question.

[wunksta]

What we do about it is however a political question.

And, just like with the pandemic, the GOP is not providing any alternative solutions. They basically ignore it and hope it will go away.

[Theodarzna]

No.
As I posted in the relevant thread;

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote of his ruling that it seemed contradictory to say it was unsafe to go to church but not to shop for a new bike.

"So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike," Gorsuch wrote
----
If the governor wants restrictions then he needs to apply them equally.

The common person, the "essential worker" cannot gather with friends or have a beer after fetching food and rides for their masters, cannot have a funeral or a wedding or any sort of human social connection, but you can consume product.



- - - Updated - - -

And, just like with the pandemic, the GOP is not providing any alternative solutions. They basically ignore it and hope it will go away.

Back to the evangelist game I see. Well, I can see why your Climate Change discussions go poorly.

[wunksta]

Back to the evangelist game I see. Well, I can see why your Climate Change discussions go poorly.

So please, correct me if I am wrong. What has the GOP done to combat climate change or the pandemic? And it's not evangelizing, it's simply the fact that only one political party has made any attempts at addressing this. If what you said was true, that the GOP simply disagrees with the policies why haven't they come up with any alternative solution or policies?

[Howel]

So please, correct me if I am wrong. What has the GOP done to combat climate change or the pandemic? And it's not evangelizing, it's simply the fact that only one political party has made any attempts at addressing this. If what you said was true, that the GOP simply disagrees with the policies why haven't they come up with any alternative solution or policies?

To be entirely fair, they have done travel bans to the places that were hit. And they were part of, I think two stimulus packets.

[Theodarzna]

So please, correct me if I am wrong. What has the GOP done to combat climate change or the pandemic?

Dude, it's not going to work, I'm not going to stan Nancy Pelosi.

See, this is probably where you fuck up. In the end you are less into the Climate Change problem and more into the DNC, basically trying to sell people on a consumer product. You need to focus on what it is you want people to believe? Is it in Climate Change or the Democratic Party? Because Climate Change is easier to sell than an entire political party.

This is what I am talking about; probably where you struggle is that people can smell a rat, and you are gunning hard to sell people a consumer product, not have a discussion about Climate Change. Nobody likes the greasy shyster car salesman trying to work them over, and you already display that salesman pitch right away. People have a variety of complex reasons for why they might identify with a political project or not, and you are essentially bundling "Do you believe in Climate Change" with "Do you like X, Y, or Z politician". This is essentially "Well if you believe Climate Change is real than you must love Rahm Emmanuel, that is just Science and Expert respecting!". Basically, maybe try talking to people rather than trying to convert them. People can tell the difference between a discussion and someone giving a sermon or hawking a sales pitch.

[wunksta]

Dude, it's not going to work, I'm not going to stan Nancy Pelosi.

See, this is probably where you fuck up. In the end you are less into the Climate Change problem and more into the DNC, basically trying to sell people on a consumer product. You need to focus on what it is you want people to believe? Is it in Climate Change or the Democratic Party? Because Climate Change is easier to sell than an entire political party.

This is what I am talking about; probably where you struggle is that people can smell a rat, and you are gunning hard to sell people a consumer product, not have a discussion about Climate Change. Nobody likes the greasy shyster car salesman trying to work them over, and you already display that salesman pitch right away. People have a variety of complex reasons for why they might identify with a political project or not, and you are essentially bundling "Do you believe in Climate Change" with "Do you like X, Y, or Z politician". This is essentially "Well if you believe Climate Change is real than you must love Rahm Emmanuel, that is just Science and Expert respecting!". Basically, maybe try talking to people rather than trying to convert them. People can tell the difference between a discussion and someone giving a sermon or hawking a sales pitch.

Again, you brought up the fact that liberals are saying 'listen to the experts' and the right reject those policies and call it a hoax. If this is simply a political question of how to combat climate change, why is only one political party trying to address it? If the right doesn't like the policies, why not come up with their own policies? I'm not trying to say Democrats or Pelosi is right or better than the GOP. I'm simply saying the GOP is not even trying.

[Theodarzna]

Again, you brought up the fact that liberals are saying 'listen to the experts' and the right reject those policies and call it a hoax. If this is simply a political question of how to combat climate change, why is only one political party trying to address it? If the right doesn't like the policies, why not come up with their own policies? I'm not trying to say Democrats or Pelosi is right or better than the GOP. I'm simply saying the GOP is not even trying.

And I've explained why I chastise that as a rhetorical approach. And explained what the people denying it completely are also doing. The problem is "Trust the experts" isn't a policy, it is a surrender over policy, it is a short cut to avoid politics. Something you seem clearly categorically unable to reckon with as a problem.

[wunksta]

And I've explained why I chastise that as a rhetorical approach. And explained what the people denying it completely are also doing. The problem is "Trust the experts" isn't a policy, it is a surrender over policy, it is a short cut to avoid politics. Something you seem clearly categorically unable to reckon with as a problem.

No, I see it as a basis for making policy. We listen to the experts, who conclude that climate change is being caused by human actions and then society collectively develops policies to combat that. I don't think anyone has said, let's get a random climate scientist to draft up an economic or government policy to fix everything.

And here's an example of past climate debates.

[Theodarzna]

No, I see it as a basis for making policy. We listen to the experts, who conclude that climate change is being caused by human actions and then society collectively develops policies to combat that. I don't think anyone has said, let's get a random climate scientist to draft up an economic or government policy to fix everything.

And here's an example of past climate debates.

Yeah, "Rational Skepticism" forum, ah the good old pre-2006 era internet. I miss Myspace forums, them's were the days!

The problem is, "listen to experts" is not even explicitly defined, it is a piece of rhetoric that lets you fill in the blanks. Kind of like claims that the ACA is a stepping stone to Universal health care, its never actually described as such but people believe it. Policy is being crafted, by the powerful, since they will be able to actually enact policy. Whatever experts say about the terraforming of our own planet by industrial processes is basically irrelevant to the ACTUAL debate which is the question of power and who has a voice over that policy prescription that will get adopted.

[Antiganon]

Yeah, "Rational Skepticism" forum, ah the good old pre-2006 era internet. I miss Myspace forums, them's were the days!

The problem is, "listen to experts" is not even explicitly defined, it is a piece of rhetoric that lets you fill in the blanks. Kind of like claims that the ACA is a stepping stone to Universal health care, its never actually described as such but people believe it. Policy is being crafted, by the powerful, since they will be able to actually enact policy. Whatever experts say about the terraforming of our own planet by industrial processes is basically irrelevant to the ACTUAL debate which is the question of power and who has a voice over that policy prescription that will get adopted.

Sen. Reid: Obamacare Absolutely a Step Toward a Single-Payer System

Don't let statements from the people who wrote the damn bill get in the way of your narrative though.

[wunksta]

Yeah, "Rational Skepticism" forum, ah the good old pre-2006 era internet. I miss Myspace forums, them's were the days!

Yeah I spent a lot of time in those Myspace creationism forums.

The problem is, "listen to experts" is not even explicitly defined, it is a piece of rhetoric that lets you fill in the blanks. Kind of like claims that the ACA is a stepping stone to Universal health care, its never actually described as such but people believe it. Policy is being crafted, by the powerful, since they will be able to actually enact policy. Whatever experts say about the terraforming of our own planet by industrial processes is basically irrelevant to the ACTUAL debate which is the question of power and who has a voice over that policy prescription that will get adopted.

I don't think it's irrelevant as it shows that those industrial megacorporations have an impact and we can see them financing those in power who are crafting policies or simply ignoring the problem entirely. We saw the same situation back when leaded gasoline was found to be a problem by experts yet corporations involved tried to suppress the research and discredit the experts by throwing a lot of money around.

Also, an expert isn't someone who just comes out and says 'trust me'. These are people who have years in their field, provide evidence and peer reviewed research that stands up on its on. At this point, it's not a single expert on climate change but thousands of scientists across numerous disciplines who have all collected data that shows there is a problem. The fact that some politicians still call it a hoax should be concerning. Like you said, there's a lot of anti-intellectualism and rejection of experts, but that's not a good thing.

And I can understand your concern about some politicians using 'experts' as a shield while trying to pass legislation that is only beneficial to some. That doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to experts or value their input.

[Howel]

The problem is, "listen to experts" is not even explicitly defined, it is a piece of rhetoric that lets you fill in the blanks. Kind of like claims that the ACA is a stepping stone to Universal health care, its never actually described as such but people believe it. Policy is being crafted, by the powerful, since they will be able to actually enact policy. Whatever experts say about the terraforming of our own planet by industrial processes is basically irrelevant to the ACTUAL debate which is the question of power and who has a voice over that policy prescription that will get adopted.

It is better than not having them around, and just doing whatever one feels like. Heck without those experts, we wouldn't even know that climate change was occurring, or where it was coming from, or what measures could be taken to combat it.

I can certainly understand the notion, that it is one thing to say that you listen to experts, and it is something else to do what they actually say. But without them at all, you're basically just doing policies at random, in the hopes that it solves the problem.

[Theodarzna]

Sen. Reid: Obamacare Absolutely a Step Toward a Single-Payer System

Don't let statements from the people who wrote the damn bill get in the way of your narrative though.

A clever deception, lets review the actual words. By the way, how many weeks have you been looking for this?

First, the last part of this uncited interview:

Reid cited the post-WWII auto industry labor negotiations that made employer-backed health insurance the norm, remarking that “we’ve never been able to work our way out of that” before predicting that Congress would someday end the insurance-based health care system.

Someday? What day? Tomorrow? Today? Sixty years from now?

Second,

Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

Reid never links Obamacare towards that, but leaves room for the implication. Obamacare is to him a "Step in a right direction", what direction? Well it could be the Universal Health Care, SOME DAY.... always someday.

Also, as we note, there is no aspect of the ACA that is NHS, in fact Medicare already is closer to being the NHS, yet gets passed over to create a mandated market place and a law requiring people by a consumer product. Face it, you got played.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah I spent a lot of time in those Myspace creationism forums.

I never got into those specific debates. It is to me wild to recall how big of a deal that stuff was in the early internet and how today it seems like that whole age is just a memory, like no evidence of it even exists really anymore. So ever present and dominate in internet culture that often a specific forum section had to be created just to contain it. And then after 2006 and definitely by 2010, gone, heck, seeing that board was almost like a trip down memory lane.

I don't think it's irrelevant as it shows that those industrial megacorporations have an impact and we can see them financing those in power who are crafting policies or simply ignoring the problem entirely. We saw the same situation back when leaded gasoline was found to be a problem by experts yet corporations involved tried to suppress the research and discredit the experts by throwing a lot of money around.

There is however via philanthropic orgs, and being in charge of policy the means by which they can shift the burden of who is to blame for Climate Change.

Also, an expert isn't someone who just comes out and says 'trust me'. These are people who have years in their field, provide evidence and peer reviewed research that stands up on its on. At this point, it's not a single expert on climate change but thousands of scientists across numerous disciplines who have all collected data that shows there is a problem. The fact that some politicians still call it a hoax should be concerning. Like you said, there's a lot of anti-intellectualism and rejection of experts, but that's not a good thing.

That is the sales pitch, the "Expert" is whatever you imagine it to be. You hear experts and you imagine some unbiased panel of geniuses just offering optimal solutions, no ideology, all facts.

I see simply rhetoric and a way to sell something that is deeply ideological as non-ideological.

And I can understand your concern about some politicians using 'experts' as a shield while trying to pass legislation that is only beneficial to some. That doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to experts or value their input.

It means their input is entirely unimportant, arguing over expertise is not the real discussion and continuously harping on it is just contributing to the mystification and de-politicization.

- - - Updated - - -

It is better than not having them around, and just doing whatever one feels like. Heck without those experts, we wouldn't even know that climate change was occurring, or where it was coming from, or what measures could be taken to combat it.

I can certainly understand the notion, that it is one thing to say that you listen to experts, and it is something else to do what they actually say. But without them at all, you're basically just doing policies at random, in the hopes that it solves the problem.

You gave away the game, so we are back to de-politicization.

[wunksta]

It means their input is entirely unimportant, arguing over expertise is not the real discussion and continuously harping on it is just contributing to the mystification and de-politicization.

Ok what would this look like in practice? How would it improve the climate change debate?