O/T:- ⚠️Impressed with the leadership [The UK Party Politics Thread]

[Magpies1959]

Surely it is only those nasty oil people that are there only to make billions. These wind and solar chaps are anti profit and just want to provide cheap clean energy for the poorest in society, while keeping the earth's thermostat at the optimum setting for all life on earth.

[Newish Pie]

As usual you're speaking with absolute certainty of a chaotic universe, as anybody indoctrinated by a cult will do. You have faith in "the science" and you will support more and more government interference and control of people's lives in order to achieve your insane objective, the subjugation of nature, the environment, human genes, you name it. This is fascism on stilts.

Right, let's try and unpick some of this. Not in the spirit of mocking or patronising, but in the spirit of trying to understand the thought process here and perhaps provide some reassurance.

First, let's talk about science and certainty and the nature of the universe. Can we be absolutely certain that the climate is changing in ways that are (a) going to be catastrophic for human civilisation; and (b) that human activity is causing this. I'd say no. Not if we're asking for absolute certainty. Because the number of things we can be absolutely certain about is very low.

When philosopher Rene Descartes said "I think, therefore I am", what he meant is that he was absolutely certain of his own existence as a "thinking thing". Someone... some thing.... was thinking, and that thinking thing was him. Of that he was absolutely certain. He argued that he couldn't be certain of anything else, because he couldn't rule out that he might be dreaming (am I a man dreaming of being a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming of a man?), or that there might be an evil demon tricking him. Or, in modern terms, he might be living in the matrix or a computer simulation.

If I'm not absolutely certain that I'm not living in the Matrix or a computer simulation, I'm not absolutely certain about anything else much, but there must be an "I".

Point is, "absolute certainty" is the wrong bar. The wrong measure. If we want "absolute certainty", we're going to be disappointed. If we want "absolute certainty" before acting, we'll never act on anything.

The science on climate change does not reach the bar on absolute certainty, because little or nothing does. But it comfortably clears the bar on settled science. It's the consensus among experts, and has been for a long time now.

Here's why it's not a cult. It's because it's not "the science" in the sense of any particular set of conclusions that we ought to have faith in, it's "science" as in "the scientific method"... the way we reach conclusions and consensus. It's not a cult because when the evidence changes, the conclusions change. When a new model or theory emerges that better fits observations, it gradually takes over. The scientific method is the reason why we're not still living in mud huts. Perhaps we wouldn't even have made it to mud huts. Everything we enjoy about modern life is the result of the scientific method, and then some smart engineering, and then social arrangements (including capitalism).

I'm not a scientist, but I work in a closely adjacent role. Science and scientists aren't perfect... it is a human institution full of humans who are prone to all the same weaknesses and prejudices and blind spots that everyone else is. There are a lot of problems and weaknesses that I won't go into now.

But when the people and methods who brought you the fundamental insights that put humans on the moon and the mobile phone in your pocket are also telling you that there's a major climate crisis, I'd say it's time to believe them. It's settled science now. The consensus is clear. I can't rule out dramatic new evidence emerging (and god I hope it does, never have I hoped more to be wrong), but we could say that same about evolution or gravity.

The universe both is and isn't chaotic. On a quantum level, it's weird as all holy folk, and anyone who thinks they understand it, doesn't. But on other levels, it acts in known, predictable ways, and we have good theories that give us predictions that we can use to inform technologies. The more complex things get, the more unknowns and variables, the harder it is to predict. But we can and do make successful predictions and rely upon them.

On to "government interference". How we respond to climate change, who has to make what sacrifices, how the adaptation burden is shared, are all key political questions that are open for debate and discussion. There's concern about how we do it fairly, both within individual countries and internationally.

We need an open, honest discussion about what this looks like. But we can't have one while people are denying that there's a problem. Big Oil used the same tactics as Big Tobacco, and delayed and denied and obfuscated and spread doubt. They're still at it. It's time to stop falling for it.

As for the rest... more and more government control.... "subjugation of nature, environment, human genes... fascism"... genuinely no idea what you're referring to here. There's no fait accompli, no big conspiracy to bring in all these things, whatever they are.

What there is.... Big Oil, shadowy far right think tanks using the Big Tobacco playbook to try to sow uncertainty, doubt, paranoia, confusion to delay action on climate change that might hurt their profits. Why they're doing this I don't know... do they genuinely believe that action on climate change is worse than climate change (for them and their kind), or are they just trying to keep their party going as long as possible, or at least for their lifetimes? Or are they so ideologically blinded that when reality contradicts their ideological commitments, they choose the latter?

[upthemaggies]

I'm not a scientist, but I work in a closely adjacent role. Science and scientists aren't perfect... it is a human institution full of humans who are prone to all the same weaknesses and prejudices and blind spots that everyone else is. There are a lot of problems and weaknesses that I won't go into now.

Corruption. The threat of losing funding or credibility if they don't come up with the results their pay masters want to hear, for example.

You make a lot of fair points. I feel quite zen about it in the sense that I'm happy to leave it to the hands of nature and the Earth to take care of itself. If we die out, we die out. Natural selection has no interest in avoiding suffering and nobody thinks of an as yet unevolved species that may crawl out the sea in a few million years time and make a far better job of things if we're all out of the way.

[Jampie]

As usual you're speaking with absolute certainty of a chaotic universe, as anybody indoctrinated by a cult will do. You have faith in "the science" and you will support more and more government interference and control of people's lives in order to achieve your insane objective, the subjugation of nature, the environment, human genes, you name it. This is fascism on stilts.

You read my message on presumably a liquid crystal full colour high resolution display, are using a nanoprocessor device with several gigabytes of random access memory in it to reply, your reply is being sent to me over a global network of lasers shooting down glass fibers to the other side of the planet, having been stored in a database system that is several generations old and took decades to refine to where it is today.

And you mock me for having "faith" in science. Ha!

I don't have "faith" in science. Or anything. I look at evidence, and the evidence for humans causing climate change is very convincing. The evidence for global warming being bad is also quite convincing.

What are you talking about with government interference in people's lives? Where am I advocating for that? You sound completely paranoid and deluded to me.

[Newish Pie]

Corruption. The threat of losing funding or credibility if they don't come up with the results their pay masters want to hear, for example.

You make a lot of fair points. I feel quite zen about it in the sense that I'm happy to leave it to the hands of nature and the Earth to take care of itself. If we die out, we die out. Natural selection has no interest in avoiding suffering and nobody thinks of an as yet unevolved species that may crawl out the sea in a few million years time and make a far better job of things if we're all out of the way.

Well, that's useful in that it makes it pretty clear where we disagree. I'd rather we didn't die out as a species, and I'd rather we avoided the untold amount of suffering that would accompany our demise. For all our faults and foibles, I kinda like and value people as a whole. Yes, we've made a mess of the planet, but we've done some cool stuff too, and we did just manage to avoid nuking ourselves into oblivion, so there's that. Unfortunately, we've done some much meddling and damage, that the Earth can't take of itself in the sense of remaining the kind of place that will support the kind of life we want to live.

Pleased to say that your worry about corruption in science is unfounded, at least in terms of the way you've put it. Research funding is literally my job. There just aren't hidden "paymasters" who demand certain results... it just doesn't work like that. There's a complex ecosystem of research funders - domestic, European (e.g. Horizon, in the news recently), and worldwide. You've got research councils which give out public money, charities, quasi-charities, foundations, trusts, and so on. There's also industry funding and co-funding.

Funders don't micromanage the science. They'll want reports on the budget and on progress, but there's no shadowy figure on the phone to researchers telling them what they must or mustn't find, or else. I work with researchers... they're frighteningly clever people. And I don't want to generalise, but as a rule they prize their academic freedom highly, and won't stand for interference. Their toleration for administration/bureaucracy in general is pretty low, because most of them don't understand it. Getting researchers to do anything is like herding cats.... not a chance that anyone in UKRI (for example) tells them what their results ought to be. Not a chance.

There are worries in science that too much funding gets spent on safe projects and not enough on innovative or original ideas. That funding decisions - made by researchers - can be prone to groupthink and conservativism the same way as any human decision-making process. But then, there are funders who specialise in innovative, high-risk-high-reward stuff, or special schemes for those ideas. Some funders are experimenting with randomisation in funding allocation.

[upthemaggies]

but we've done some cool stuff too, and we did just manage to avoid nuking ourselves into oblivion, so there's that.
.

Did? We're arguably as close now to nuclear war than at any time in the last 40 years, with the same people banging on about climate change cheerleading us to the brink of actual oblivion in the here and now.
Yay for science.

Unfortunately, we've done some much meddling and damage, that the Earth can't take of itself in the sense of remaining the kind of place that will support the kind of life we want to live.
.

It's not the purpose of the Earth to sustain an environment for humans. It would be the height of arrogance and entitlement to suggest otherwise. Every other species except for domesticated pets and those now reliant on town/city environments would conspire to get rid of us if they could.

We're an expression of this planet in a mere blink of its' eye. We're animals driven by basic animal instincts that just so happen to be able to talk **** to justify to ourselves the pointlessness of what we do and to convince others to go along with it. There's nothing to achieve other than realising your own ego is an illusion, then it all makes sense without some preacher or scientist trying and failing to bridge that gap with words or equations.

[drillerpie]

Did? We're arguably as close now to nuclear war than at any time in the last 40 years, with the same people banging on about climate change cheerleading us to the brink of actual oblivion in the here and now.
Yay for science.



It's not the purpose of the Earth to sustain an environment for humans. It would be the height of arrogance and entitlement to suggest otherwise. Every other species except for domesticated pets and those now reliant on town/city environments would conspire to get rid of us if they could.

We're an expression of this planet in a mere blink of its' eye. We're animals driven by basic animal instincts that just so happen to be able to talk **** to justify to ourselves the pointlessness of what we do and to convince others to go along with it. There's nothing to achieve other than realising your own ego is an illusion, then it all makes sense without some preacher or scientist trying and failing to bridge that gap with words or equations.

I don't think we are on the brink of nuclear oblivion at all. I think there are certain political forces (The United Russia party, and the MAGA wing of the Republican party) that have a lot to gain from making people think we are, and they are executing that plan quite successfully.

I expect this will build to a crescendo in November 2024, but that is probably for discussion on a different thread.

But if you are truly zen about human extinction, I'm not sure why you would care either way.

[Newish Pie]

Did? We're arguably as close now to nuclear war than at any time in the last 40 years, with the same people banging on about climate change cheerleading us to the brink of actual oblivion in the here and now.
Yay for science.



It's not the purpose of the Earth to sustain an environment for humans. It would be the height of arrogance and entitlement to suggest otherwise. Every other species except for domesticated pets and those now reliant on town/city environments would conspire to get rid of us if they could.

We're an expression of this planet in a mere blink of its' eye. We're animals driven by basic animal instincts that just so happen to be able to talk **** to justify to ourselves the pointlessness of what we do and to convince others to go along with it. There's nothing to achieve other than realising your own ego is an illusion, then it all makes sense without some preacher or scientist trying and failing to bridge that gap with words or equations.

You've lost me again. The people calling for action on climate change tend not to be apologists for Putin. In fact, it's rather the opposite... although there's no obvious correlation between the two, those who tend to be pro-Putin tend more towards climate change denialism. Perhaps it's the conspiratorial mindset.

I agree that it would be arrogant and entitled to claim that the purpose of the Earth is to sustain an environment for humans. I don't think that and didn't say that. This tends to be a religious view - that God made the Earth and put us in charge - that I don't share. However, it is true that we're the product of our planet, which has shaped our evolution at every turn.

As a species, we carry a lot with us from our deep evolutionary past... we're not evolved for our modern world and that's causing problems. But if we were just animals driven by basic animal instincts, we'd still be living in small squabbling tribes. I'd say that humans have two outstanding qualities - we're very good at cooperation and coordination, and we're very adaptable in what we can do and the skills we can acquire. Neuroplasticity. I find it amazing that nearly all humans are capable of things like learning to read and driving cars at high speeds on motorways... we're not evolved to do either of those things. The level of understand we've achieved about our environment and the technological and engineering achievements have been immense, and all in a very, very short time. Our ability to research our own origins and the origins and basic mechanics of the universe is amazing.

That's not to say that we're perfect. As it stands, it's looking like our downfall will be that we've not been able to overcome our biases in thinking and or be able to coordinate well or quickly enough to deal with the environmental consequences of success. In particular, our tendency towards short-termism and wishful thinking.

[upthemaggies]

As a species, we carry a lot with us from our deep evolutionary past... we're not evolved for our modern world and that's causing problems. .

Right.

Every human invention adds another layer of chaos to the mix with both the good and the bad that goes with it, the unintended unforeseen consequences often only becoming apparent years, decades, centuries down the line.

Science *IS* a religion, people outsource their thinking to it, trusting it's going to solve all of humanities problems and explain everything.

In the west there's never been a more comfortable period in which to live where everything is available to you at the click of a button, food is available every day of the week less than 15 minutes walk away for most of us and yet we've got a huge percentage of the population now on anti-depressants, addicted to drugs or alcohol, divorce, single parents, self-harm, mental illness etc. etc. Science has done that to them. It's separated them from the land and put them in a human zoo.

Nobody should be intimidated by, nor have any automatic respect for scientists, academics, experts, leaders or whatever letters they've got after their name. They've got a headful of **** like anybody else but with a god complex in addition.

We need to get off our knees and start chanting "You don't know what you're doing, you're don't what you're doing" at the whole ducking lot of 'em.

[Jampie]

You've lost me again. The people calling for action on climate change tend not to be apologists for Putin. In fact, it's rather the opposite... although there's no obvious correlation between the two, those who tend to be pro-Putin tend more towards climate change denialism. Perhaps it's the conspiratorial mindset.

I would bet serious cash Putin's propaganda system routinely regularly boosts "climate change is fake" kinda messages because his entire economy is fossil fuels.

It's not like they use separate arms of the internet lies dept either. I was active in some Australian covid-19 groups during the pandemic and when the war in Ukraine started a whole bunch of, for example, facebook sites that had been pushing anti-vax lies did a 270 degree turn and began screaming pro-russia war propaganda. It was really blatant and jarring, literally one day one set of propaganda, and the next day a completely different message about a completely different topic. At the same time the heavily boosted anti-vax stuff in other forums was still being posted but not as boosted. The upvote-brigade just had higher priorities all of a sudden.

I still think western intelligence agencies and leadership are underestimating the sheer extent to which public opinion in a lot of countries has been manipulated both by our own oligarchs and russian influence.