Comment by mistermann
6 years ago
> Most of the people who focus on phase 2 basically want us to stay on fossil fuels forever, but they don't want to come out and say it.
How do you know this? Serious question.
6 years ago
> Most of the people who focus on phase 2 basically want us to stay on fossil fuels forever, but they don't want to come out and say it.
How do you know this? Serious question.
Because if you leave out the first and third phases, then there is no reason to develop renewables and get off of fossil fuels. And if that was not what they thought, they should say it, but they don't.
But let me ask you the question, what is your position on global climate change and renewables? Do you believe global climate change is real, caused at least considerably by human fossil fuel emissions and dangerous? Do you believe we should be replacing fossil fuels with renewables?
And what do you think of my three phase analysis?
> And if that was not what they thought...
Oh, so you do realize you are speculating about what other people think then? It wasn't clear in your prior comment.
> But let me ask you the question, what is your position on global climate change and renewables?
My position is that until we realize that the problem preventing us from moving forward is not a lack of climate science, but rather a lack of psychological/neurological science, and a lack of widespread knowledge of, and acceptance of, that which we already know...including, or maybe even especially, among the intellectually gifted, like many people right here on HN.
Because of this, I consider the rest of your comment is moot. Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, it makes no difference. We have the same conversations here day after day, year after year, with the same self-important tones of intellectual and moral superiority. And for what? Does anything ever change? You can have a ten phase analysis and it doesn't mean shit at the end of the day if you can't get people to agree on a direction to move in.
If you cared about the environment as much as you think you do, you'd be willing to listen to what I'm saying. And if you were willing to listen to what I'm saying, you'd be the first person on HN. But I suspect, like all the others, you won't...because this is the nature of an uncontrolled Default Mode Network.
No, you are absolutely wrong that things never change. The survey data shows that the public has been steadily increasing its acceptance of the realities of global climate change and what needs to be done about it. That is true even among Republicans.
Instead of lecturing me about the psychological/neurological science (which I do know a fair amount about, though I am sure not as much as you do about the neurological side), you should be looking at how it is that conventional arguments for realities sometimes works. Also, the problem with focusing on first getting people to accept what the psychological and neurological science is that people's psychology and neurology will cause them to reject the scientific truths about the psychology and neurology.
As far as having a strong view on what other people are thinking, everyone does that all the time, including you. For instance, when someone tells you they believe something, you make a judgement as to whether or not they are telling the truth. You do it because you are not crazy.
The reason I think what I do in this case is I have been watching this debate over the years. Traditionally people who disbelieved in global climate change would present arguments it is not occuring (or not dangerous).In the last year or so, this has pretty much stopped, at least in forums like HN, and instead people have presented the argument that renewables are bad for the environment (which is in fact not true).
I assume the reason for this change is that the people who disbelieve in global climate change have realized they can't win the battle arguing directly and have switched to an indirect approach. In fact, there is an name for this, it's called "concern trolling" Furthermore I think it is clear there is an small army of trollers on this subject paid for by business or ideological interests, so I assume this switch in tactics was decided by them. Though of course some people who are not paid trollers might also follow along.
1 reply →