Environmental Collapse: when and how bad?

sus

sus

Well-known member
Mr. Tea said:
@suspended - OK, you got me. It's not 100%. But it is, apparently, about 99.97%.

news.cornell.edu

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
news.cornell.edu news.cornell.edu
Click to expand...
You've been carrying this around, waiting for the sick own? What'd I even say I can't remember! I think I've only ever argued that the leftist portrait of climate change is heavily politicized and as exaggerated/deviant from the facts as right-wing denialism. (The reality being about even distance between lefty apocalyptica erotica and "not happening")
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
suspended said:
You've been carrying this around, waiting for the sick own? What'd I even say I can't remember! I think I've only ever argued that the leftist portrait of climate change is heavily politicized and as exaggerated/deviant from the facts as right-wing denialism. (The reality being about even distance between lefty apocalyptica erotica and "not happening")
Click to expand...
I said that the scientific consensus was unanimous, which it is. You denied this, then went on a bit of a rant that I didn't really understand, which included namedropping some irrelevant French philosophers and concluded with you acting like you'd just kicked my shins and stolen my lunch money.

I think you still don't get it, if you think this is primarily a "left vs right" issue, rather than an issue of reality vs the fossil fuel industry, or that one has to be "left wing" to accept reality, and not adopt a position of bogus "balanced" agnosticism.

That said, it is overwhelmingly the right the sides against reality with the fossil fuel industry, obviously.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sus
sus

sus

Well-known member
You're goading me Tea! I'm trying to write.

I can't quite remember this interaction. I still think that pretending there's a neutral scientific consensus on an incredibly charged political subject is a bit silly and naive, don't you? If only because there are strong selection and self-selection effects for getting into these fields and publishing, in the first place. Psychology's endless attempted owns of conservatives (which are really self-owns of psychology) are an example of this. Although psychology is less rigorous and thus more susceptible to confirmation bias than climate science. (OTOH, climate science is more ambiguous and less clear-cut than, say, physics, and by a long-shot.)

I don't believe I've ever said I didn't believe in climate change, just that the standard American Democrat's views on the subject are about as equally unscientific as the average American Republican's.
 
version

version

Well-known member
suspended said:
Psychology's endless attempted owns of conservatives (which are really self-owns of psychology) are an example of this. Although psychology is less rigorous and thus more susceptible to confirmation bias than climate science.
Click to expand...
The Atlantic recently published something on this,
www.theatlantic.com

The Experts Somehow Overlooked Authoritarians on the Left

Many psychologists wrongly assumed that coercive attitudes exist only among conservatives.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus
sus

sus

Well-known member
Obviously it depends how you define left vs. right, but the idea that progressives—literal eugenecists, in our not-so-far-off past—can't be authoritarian is laughable. Are these people possibly so ignorant of their own cultural history, as a political people?
 
Last edited:
sus

sus

Well-known member
And of course, this stuff is very convenient isn't it when you have an authoritarian leftist movement right in front of you in America which is willing to toss out free expression, innocent until proven guilty, "beyond a reasonable doubt," in the name of promoting the Correct Pure Ideology. Which attempts to top-down apply its sense of propriety on a global scale. No subculture, no office space left untouched. (For better and worse! Some stuff like sexual harrassment norms, this seems good. But it's basically definitionally authoritarian, these raids and policings of locality.) A movement which can't be called authoritarian in tendency because it is basically the secular religion of our times, which incurs immense punishment on those academics who criticize or challenge it. Difficult to think of something more fascist. (And calling yourself anti-fascist doesn't let you off the hook.)
 
sus

sus

Well-known member
And like the eugenecist progressives of the early 20th C, they believe they can use force to silence opposition because their ideology isn't ideology, it's just Objective Truth.

This is the kind of worldview someone like @Mr. Tea exemplifies, of course.
 
Clinamenic

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
Yeah authoritarianism isn't partisan, as far as I gather. The notion of "social policy" involved with the pending progressive bill vaguely intimates a sort of top-down enforced culture, but ultimately I'm not too worried about that. Seems like a right wing wolf cry.

I don't know the details of the progressive bill, other than that it includes universal pre-K, maybe some stuff about parental leave. Pretty sure I'm not confusing it with the infrastructure bill.

But there does seem to be a tendency among Democratic/left-wing partisan talking points to posture as nothing more than an empirical standpoint without any value judgements that would disqualify it as such, which is of course nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus
Clinamenic

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
Bad faith neutrality. Not something I sense is equivalently prevalent on the right, but then again I'm rarely tuned in to mainstream right-wing media.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
suspended said:
You're goading me Tea! I'm trying to write.

I can't quite remember this interaction. I still think that pretending there's a neutral scientific consensus on an incredibly charged political subject is a bit silly and naive, don't you? If only because there are strong selection and self-selection effects for getting into these fields and publishing, in the first place. Psychology's endless attempted owns of conservatives (which are really self-owns of psychology) are an example of this. Although psychology is less rigorous and thus more susceptible to confirmation bias than climate science. (OTOH, climate science is more ambiguous and less clear-cut than, say, physics, and by a long-shot.)

I don't believe I've ever said I didn't believe in climate change, just that the standard American Democrat's views on the subject are about as equally unscientific as the average American Republican's.
Click to expand...
To be honest i cant be arsed debating this with someone who thinks it's about scoring "owns".
 
sus

sus

Well-known member
Clinamenic said:
Yeah authoritarianism isn't partisan, as far as I gather. The notion of "social policy" involved with the pending progressive bill vaguely intimates a sort of top-down enforced culture, but ultimately I'm not too worried about that. Seems like a right wing wolf cry.

I don't know the details of the progressive bill, other than that it includes universal pre-K, maybe some stuff about parental leave. Pretty sure I'm not confusing it with the infrastructure bill.

But there does seem to be a tendency among Democratic/left-wing partisan talking points to posture as nothing more than an empirical standpoint without any value judgements that would disqualify it as such, which is of course nonsense.
Click to expand...
Interesting too how lefty-types are historically quite concerned about the way ideology is sold to the public as "objective fact" (see that Mark Fisher quote about natural order @sufi just posted). The way the deconstructionists challenged the idea of neutral science, as another example.

I guess this is where horseshoe theory comes in. I'm skeptical of liberal claims of objectivity and neutrality specifically because I'm post-structuralism pilled. Whereas Tea is more on the centrist liberal media vibe and confuses me with a far-right figure.

Bruno Latour's written interestingly on this score, about how right-wing anti-liberal-institutional-hegemony looks a lot like the philosophy of science work he & his colleagues worked on in the 70s.
 
sus

sus

Well-known member
Clinamenic said:
Bad faith neutrality. Not something I sense is equivalently prevalent on the right, but then again I'm rarely tuned in to mainstream right-wing media.
Click to expand...
It's that midwit/galaxy brain meme, yeah? The liberal faith in "objective knowledge" in fields like psychology is a step above the reactionary dogmatism, but starts looking pretty naive in its "secular science" orientation if you're hip to the history and philosophy of science.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Mr. Tea said:
@suspended What's your take on this?

www.nbcnews.com

Books on Holocaust should be balanced with 'opposing' views, Southlake school leader tells teachers

Teachers in the Carroll school district say they fear being punished for stocking classrooms with books dealing with racism, slavery and now the Holocaust.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
Click to expand...
Looks like a (literal) textbook example of the "bad-faith neutrality" that @Clinamenic mentioned just now. I also think it's pertinent to your claim that there's no difference between Democratic and Republican voters in terms of average levels of scientific knowledge on climate change, which is flat out untrue: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top