[deleted] t1_j6rysch wrote
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6s0wag wrote
It is an inversion of which belief system is socially dominant. All of this is made more interesting considering that climate denial and anti-vax sentiments are both skeptical of their socially dominant counter parts. This is to say nothing of truthfulness or utility of such beliefs, I have not taste of debating the exact details of either case.
Should we be skeptical of that which claims to be skepticism? Most certainly, especially the claims which others posit have passed through the skepticism sniff-test. There seems to be this implicit game of Socratic chicken, in which both parties claim to be the proprietors of true Skepticism and that therefore their truth-claims of the world are factually correct. This easily ends in solipsism in which no claims on reality can be verified.
betaray t1_j6s8qsv wrote
Skepticism isn't just taking the contrarian point of view. As Mr. Pigliucci explains, it's about "taking a look". Which side of the climate change or vaccination debate is actually investigating the claims of that they make?
A great example of this plays out in the Beyond the Curve flat earth documentary. Those attempting to prove the earth is flat are superficially skeptical. They perform experiments that would demonstrate the earth is flat. That's taking a look. However, when the results confirm the earth is round, they don't accept that evidence. Their belief is more fundamental than evidence.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6scvqk wrote
You can find investigations into the topic, into any topic, from any point of view. There are many sources out there. The biggest issue in all of this is the glut of information that we have to process in order to make informed decisions. How much information do we need to imbibe in order to make our value-judgements educated, or seem educated? Educated to whom? Even having knowledge itself isn't enough to compel action, one cannot turn an Is into an Ought. Science is a tool of understanding reality, not for discerning which actions we should take. This depends on our values.
That is the implicit issue with talking about these topics, that these beliefs are bundled together with other beliefs and their corresponding action (or inaction). When we talk about affirming the validity of Climate Change, what does that even mean? To say aloud, "Climate Change is true", what does this change? What does it change to say the opposite?
Take a look at Germany and their mothballing of some of their nuclear power plants in favor of sustainable green energy initiatives. In light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the tightening of oil supplies, Germany has had to burn more fossil fuels to make up for the lack of energy that would have been supplied by these nuclear reactors. I am sure there are other reasons as to why the nuclear reactors were shuttered, but climate change rhetoric was touted when decommissioning them. I would have much rather that energy come from nuclear power plants than from burning fossil fuels, because it is better for the environment and it loosens the grip that Russia has over continental Europe when making foreign policy decisions.
Would someone who affirms the validity of climate change want both the burning of more fossil fuels and a tighter Russian grip over Ukraine? Probably not. But such rhetoric has in part lead to such a thing, and such a thing should be investigated.
betaray t1_j6siyop wrote
Did you watch the video? This is exactly the point brought up by the Socratic dialog about physicians. As the video mentions, Cicero's criteria are a good starting place.
Anthropogenic climate change is true means that human production of CO2 is leading to overall sea level rise, temperature rise, melting ice sheets and glaciers, and ocean acidification. Those are all testable statements, which is an important part those criteria. It's a broad view which a wide range of evidence supports, and those are a couple other elements of the criteria.
Germany had two goals with its power production strategy. To reduce carbon output and to phase out nuclear power. In the wake of Russia's invasion they've had to compromise both goals. They've extended the life of nuclear power plants and increased the amount of carbon they have produced. That's unfortunate, but what does that have to do with the validity of anthropogenic climate change?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6snsrz wrote
"That's unfortunate, but what does that have to do with the validity of anthropogenic climate change?"
It is not "unfortunate", it was clearly foreseeable circumstance given the both the goals and means which were taken to achieve the goal. This is my contention. I am not contending that climate change is not verifiably true, I am skeptical of the value-judgements made by those who claim to be making decisions with these things in mind.
ButtcoinSanta t1_j6sypok wrote
The good motive and the bad motive occasionally strive for identical outcome. The motive can be selected to fit the narrative
betaray t1_j6t8dkc wrote
I'm not even sure what your objection to the goal of reducing of CO2 emissions that are verifiability causing anthropocentric climate change might be. Your opposition isn't passing Cicero's test of having a specific claim or being internally consistent. A skeptic should reject your claim unless you can provide a testable claim with evidence.
You do make the claim that was a clearly foreseeable outcome. As a skeptic you'd have evidence to support this position. What is your evidence that a limitation of the supply of natural gas was the clearly foreseeable circumstance when this decision was made in 2011?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6tdipo wrote
Not once did I object to the idea of reducing CO2 emissions. I support reducing CO2 emissions. I support it by supporting using nuclear power. But what does "having my support" even do in this matter?
Also, I don't have to pass Cicero's test. I am not beholden to Cicero. You do not have to be beholden to him either.
The circumstances that Germany found itself in 2011 would not extend for the foreseeable future: Pax Americana which allowed for historically low military spending would not extend, uninterrupted supply chain that is predicated upon this Pax Americana would be jeopardized, the severing of energy autonomy (and thus political autonomy) by shuttering nuclear energy makes Germany increasingly susceptible to foreign influence. The resurgence of Russian aggression (which is something both Romney and Trump would derided for highlighting) exposed how fragile these systems upon which such worldviews are predicated. Germany could have shored up its energy and political autonomy by expanding its reliance on nuclear energy.
edit: you have edited your reply 3 times now. I don't even know what I am responding to anymore.
[deleted] t1_j6tf63h wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments