Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Richard Crim's avatar

I have read some of your previous articles on Global Warming. I am not a fan. You are delusional in your understanding of what's happening because you filter so heavily the "evidence" you accept as valid. In short, you engage in "confirmation bias".

Most people do. Even in scientific fields like "Climate Science" this is true. The insight that SCIENCE IS A SOCIAL PROCESS is the foundation of Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". The seminal work that gave us the useful concept of the "paradigm shift".

If you are an "average" person you absorb about 80% of what you know about the world in High School. Which is why the RIGHT is so obsessive about controlling the narrative for kids. That's where most people learn everything they will ever know about "most everything".

Because, BEING INFORMED (even in an age of free information) COMES AT THE COST OF DISCRETIONARY TIME. #FYI Autistic with Synesthesia I "see" words in shapes, colors, tastes, textures, and sizes.

Most people don't allocate much time to it. What they learn about, Rome for example, once they leave HS is going to be what they absorb through TV, movies, and games. The same is true about Global Warming and Climate Change. Once people stop being "forced" to look at evidence which threatens the world view their parents "gifted" them with, they only "see" evidence which confirms their preferred reality.

Based on the "Climate Science" and opinions you frequently cite, you have sunk deep into a reality of confirmation bias. You have, in fact, become delusional. You are no longer perceiving REALITY the way the vast majority of the world perceives it.

Because here's what 65 years of research on the Earth's Ice Cores (a project on par with sequencing the Human Genome), the paleoclimate record for the last 500 million years (starting with development of LIFE), and DIRECT MEASUREMENTS have revealed.

The CLIMATE MODERATES, the ones you just love to cite, were WRONG.

They got the "science" wrong in the 80's and early 90's. They "assumed" that the RATE OF WARMING would be very slow. That THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM would take centuries, even millennia to occur. They "assumed" (because we didn't KNOW then) that warming by 2100 would be under 1.5C for the levels of CO2 they "assumed" we would put in the atmosphere by that time.

None of these "assumptions" are based on anything other than "gut feelings" when you get down to it.

You are betting the future of your grandchildren on the "gut instincts" of CLIMATE MODERATES from the 80's. Who shaped the prevailing "Climate Science Paradigm" because they got their research funded in the 80's by not being "Alarmists".

Are you so willfully blind that you cannot see the risk of that?

Addendum: My PhD is in Anthropology, my Masters is in the History of Technology, my BS was a EE/CS double major at UC Berkeley. You have a doctorate in Economics?

Expand full comment
Phil's avatar

Is this just a excuse, minimally shrouded in “devil’s advocacy”, to extoll right wing ideology? The only examples used were to take the other side of left of center positions. Your easeful denigration of “blacks” in the affirmative action section made it seem like you just wanted a good reason (in the name of “intellectual exercise”, of course) to express your otherwise hidden beliefs about their inferiority. Perhaps try to take a non-Fox-News approach and critique non-leftest ideologies, such as capitalism or corporatism, which are far more damaging to our world than anything you chose to argue against, and worthy of honest critique

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts