The dangers of bone-headed beliefs

[The Caspian Hare]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-dangers-of-boneheaded-beliefs-20110602-1fijg.html

Is it possible to get the politics out of the climate-change debate? The first step might be to acknowledge the way ideology informs attitudes to climate change on both sides.

[Guest]

Good simple analysis of the blocks to acceptance of the science.

Br Cornelius

[oly]

The attitude of many climate change believers is often rude to anyone with differing opinions. This article is too. This behavioural trait does not do their cause any good, as it reflects badly on them, & therefore any points they might have, however valid.

The aggression may stem from insecurity.

[Guest]

The attitude of many climate change believers is often rude to anyone with differing opinions. This article is too. This behavioural trait does not do their cause any good, as it reflects badly on them, & therefore any points they might have, however valid.

The aggression may stem from insecurity.

More likely frustration at having to correct the same untruths so many times. Its hard to stay polite when people do little to check their facts before expressing an unsupportable position - it wastes everyones time.

Br Cornelius

[oly]

Another danger of bone headed beliefs is when reality hits, causing potential trauma from having to resolve belief contradicting experience.

[Guest]

Another danger of bone headed beliefs is when reality hits, causing potential trauma from having to resolve belief contradicting experience.

A lot depends on whether your belief is based on sound evidence.

In that case the belief is contingent on the evidence and subject to change along with the evolving evidence.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

The attitude of many climate change believers is often rude to anyone with differing opinions. This article is too. This behavioural trait does not do their cause any good, as it reflects badly on them, & therefore any points they might have, however valid.

The aggression may stem from insecurity.

"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff" - Cicero

[Guest]

"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff" - Cicero

When you have no argument just spout .......

Br Cornelius

[oly]

A lot depends on whether your belief is based on sound evidence.

In that case the belief is contingent on the evidence and subject to change along with the evolving evidence.

Br Cornelius

A lot depends on what you call sound evidence, & if/how you evaluate all the other evidence & other relevant information.

When government policy is mentioned, political motives must be considered, as there is a history of the establishment skewing facts in order to fit a political agenda. This should then be factored into the equation.

Boneheads can recover, although this may be a slow process, & may be only partial.

[Guest]

A lot depends on what you call sound evidence, & if/how you evaluate all the other evidence & other relevant information.

When government policy is mentioned, political motives must be considered, as there is a history of the establishment skewing facts in order to fit a political agenda. This should then be factored into the equation.

Boneheads can recover, although this may be a slow process, & may be only partial.

Unfortunately policy has to be based on evidence (rather than wish forfillment) and so policy comes into it. It doesn't however come into the primary research on which the policy is based.

Your putting the cart before the horse by considering the policy response rather than the evidence which created that response.

For me the policy response is an entirely different but necessary part of the issue, and I do not agree with many of the policies which have been proposed. Most policy responses so far have involved an market/industrial response to protecting vested interests and do not in any sense adequately deal with the root causes which are fundamentally market/industrial in nature.

Br Cornelius

Edited June 6, 2011 by Guest

[oly]

1. Unfortunately policy has to be based on evidence .

2. It doesn't however come into the primary research on which the policy is based.

3. Your putting the cart before the horse by considering the policy response rather than the evidence which created that response.

4. ...protecting vested interests and do not in any sense adequately deal with the root causes which are fundamentally market/industrial in nature.

1. No it doesn't,

2. Can do, depends. It can skew & fabricate evidence to influence public opinion.

3. There's probably lots of policies that appeared before the evidence.

4. This shows the lack of commitment & double standards of the policymakers.

[H.H. Holmes]

I think that alot of the climate-change deniers (climate change is proven fact, regardless of whether humans contribute or not) is the fear associated with the dangers (like rising sea levels, declining rainforests, increased severe weather, etc...) and the changes they would have to make to diminish their contribution to the total carbon being put into the atmosphere. People don't want to give up their 4x4 trucks, their recreational vehicles, their gas guzzling SUV's, or their energy intake.

[Professor Buzzkill]

I think that alot of the climate-change deniers (climate change is proven fact, regardless of whether humans contribute or not) is the fear associated with the dangers (like rising sea levels, declining rainforests, increased severe weather, etc...) and the changes they would have to make to diminish their contribution to the total carbon being put into the atmosphere. People don't want to give up their 4x4 trucks, their recreational vehicles, their gas guzzling SUV's, or their energy intake.

Why not suggest more effective ways of reducing temperatures, like painting all house roofs white, and re-sealing all new/repaired roads with a white seal. This will measurably reduce temperatures by reflecting sunlight and heat (much like snow and ice does).

Oh i know why, you can't tax people for that.

[H.H. Holmes]

Why not suggest more effective ways of reducing temperatures, like painting all house roofs white, and re-sealing all new/repaired roads with a white seal. This will measurably reduce temperatures by reflecting sunlight and heat (much like snow and ice does).

Oh i know why, you can't tax people for that.

The temperature is only a symptom of global warming, not the root cause. The cause of global warming has much to do with the amount of carbon dioxide released by devices that use petroleum based fuels. Reducing carbon emissions will strike at base cause of global warming, not just mitigate some of the effects.

[Habitat]

I think that alot of the climate-change deniers (climate change is proven fact, regardless of whether humans contribute or not) is the fear associated with the dangers (like rising sea levels, declining rainforests, increased severe weather, etc...) and the changes they would have to make to diminish their contribution to the total carbon being put into the atmosphere. People don't want to give up their 4x4 trucks, their recreational vehicles, their gas guzzling SUV's, or their energy intake.

How true. People put up immediate resistance to anything that takes away their 'toys'. I think that is a pretty apt analogy too, like children being told my mummy not to play with the sharp object, we are just too fascinated with it to listen !

[oly]

1. ...climate-change deniers...

2. (climate change is proven fact,

3. regardless of whether humans contribute or not)

4. is the fear associated with the dangers (like rising sea levels, declining rainforests, increased severe weather, etc...)

5. People don't want to give up their 4x4 trucks

1. Deniers? Don't you mean skeptics?

2. Who ever said climate doesn't change?

3. But this is what skeptics have issues with...

4. What rising sea level? Shrinking rainforests aren't a danger of increasing co2, more like the other way round. Who said GW increases severe weather? You sure it's not weather manipulation?

5. Petrol prices increase way out of line with inflation. This is a tax on almost all goods. To do this without alternative infrastructure is extortion.

[Habitat]

I see the carbon reduction case as a very hard sell, some estimates have the fossil fuel dependency as equivalent to everyone having 8 slaves doing their bidding, and we know taking away the slaves from their owners has caused ructions in the past.

[oly]

I see the carbon reduction case as a very hard sell, some estimates have the fossil fuel dependency as equivalent to everyone having 8 slaves doing their bidding, and we know taking away the slaves from their owners has caused ructions in the past.

We don't need to lose our 8 slaves to reduce carbon. There's lots of renewable projects & technology appearing.

I don't think anyone is opposed to renewable energy. If as much money was spent on renewable energy as is spent on illegal wars, we'd never have another electricity bill again! But where's the economic sense in that?

Edited June 7, 2011 by oly