Global warming

[Mintmaster]

The best thing we can do, really, is tar the whole movement as stupid and moronic (because it is), making it difficult for those who are either marginally attached or who haven't gotten into it to want to be associated with the movement.

I'll agree with you for the vaccine issue: The best way to stop that movement is to rile up the vaccinators and point out how the anti-vaccine movement has vastly increased the number of measles cases and how mutations could pose a threat to all of humanity. The reason is that there is a majority there, so alienation and ridicule powered by facts will actually work.

The problem with AGW is that you don't have the luxury of a clear majority (you do in the scientific world, but that's different, and people who are wrong there are eventually proven so). People are pressured by the anti-AGW movement because they are surrounded by it, so riling it up in fact makes it harder for undecideds to break free.

The only way to convince those people is to give them a hook. If I was surrounded by conservatives, I would say I'm not against AGW because it's the best way to make lefties accept nuclear power; it allows America to expand its leadership in renewable energy technology and industry; it helps the auto industry (GM, Fisker, Tesla), etc.

 

[KimB]

I'll agree with you for the vaccine issue: The best way to stop that movement is to rile up the vaccinators and point out how the anti-vaccine movement has vastly increased the number of measles cases and how mutations could pose a threat to all of humanity. The reason is that there is a majority there, so alienation and ridicule powered by facts will actually work.

The problem with AGW is that you don't have the luxury of a clear majority (you do in the scientific world, but that's different, and people who are wrong there are eventually proven so). People are pressured by the anti-AGW movement because they are surrounded by it, so riling it up in fact makes it harder for undecideds to break free.

The only way to convince those people is to give them a hook. If I was surrounded by conservatives, I would say I'm not against AGW because it's the best way to make lefties accept nuclear power; it allows America to expand its leadership in renewable energy technology and industry; it helps the auto industry (GM, Fisker, Tesla), etc.

Why does that even matter? Just look at what has happened in politics over the last 30 years. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have had a truly strong majority, and yet the Republicans have not only successfully achieved many electoral victories, but have also shifted the entire nation to the right. And it is the Republicans, not the Democrats who have taken the more uncompromising view, while the Democrats have tried to "be nice" and convince people without upsetting them.

It hasn't worked there, and it won't work for AGW.

 

[Mintmaster]

Why does that even matter? Just look at what has happened in politics over the last 30 years. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have had a truly strong majority, and yet the Republicans have not only successfully achieved many electoral victories, but have also shifted the entire nation to the right. And it is the Republicans, not the Democrats who have taken the more uncompromising view, while the Democrats have tried to "be nice" and convince people without upsetting them.

What does that have to do with this debate? There's no rational basis or scientific consensus that being a democrat is better than being a republican. You can't even convince educated economists and CFOs to admit that republican fiscal policies are bad for the nation (probably because they're looking out for themselves), so how on earth are you going to convince the masses? Democrats have barely even tried calling out the fallacies spewed by "Joe the Plumber", Bill O'Reilly, etc regarding taxation, probably because it's too damn complicated to explain. Telling people that demand from spending drives hiring is far more difficult than the dogma "tax cuts creates jobs".

Obama did swing much of the country back to the left, but then he got fucked by the economy. As much as people on B3D call him out for being too much like a conservative, there is nothing else he could get passed through congress to make the economy measurably better, and the poor economy is the drive behind the shift to the right. Virtually all populations shift to the right in times of trouble, because businesses all pretend that they will hire more with lower taxes and less regulation. The worst thing that the Democrats did for their long term health is win the 2008 election, be optimistic, and try saving the economy with as much spending as they could pass. They should have sabotaged the economy by slashing spending and adopting an all tax-cut strategy endorsed by the republicans to shatter the tax myth, but of course hindsight is 20/20.

Anyway, lets get back on topic. For the average impartial observer, the choice between Democrat and Republican is a subjective debate. The AGW debate is not. There's no analogy here.

 

[KimB]

What does that have to do with this debate? There's no rational basis or scientific consensus that being a democrat is better than being a republican.

Huh? What are you talking about? In nearly every objectively-measurable policy decision, whether it be related to economics, science, or effectiveness of social policies, Republican proposals have been almost universally inferior to Democratic ones. And yet they have continued to make legislative victory after legislative victory.

Just take the whole "trickle down economics" thing. That has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it simply doesn't work. And yet the Republican party adheres more to it than ever before, and they still manage to win electoral victories. Or global warming. Again, the Republicans are the party that are strongly against any action to combat global warming (to the point that nearly all of them in office deny it even exists).

The Democratic strategy of continually shifting to the middle has done nothing more than allow the Republicans to shift further and further to the right. Accomodationism simply does not work.

 

[Mintmaster]

Huh? What are you talking about? In nearly every objectively-measurable policy decision, whether it be related to economics, science, or effectiveness of social policies, Republican proposals have been almost universally inferior to Democratic ones. And yet they have continued to make legislative victory after legislative victory.

What objectively measurable policies? You can't measure the immorality of privatized health care, abortion vs. womens rights, etc. Even with economics, there's tons of dissent (like I said, probably because the top dogs have personal interests). If an intelligent guy like Fred can dig up studies that show a long term multiplier of 3 for tax cuts, then how do you objectively dispute that? You can talk about liquidity trap theory, but that can't get a scientific consensus using that over the multitude of empirical results from normal times. If policies created and sponsored by both parties paved the way for deregulation of derivatives, why would one be seen as better? If bad and excessive debt was behind the financial crisis, and debt is worrysome for everyone with a mortgage, then how on earth can you convince people that debt is good for the nation, particularly when the trillions of recent debt did nothing for unemployment?

The shift to the right has nothing to do with hard science. It has to do with selfishness - especially that of the rich, who are duping the rest - and values/beliefs.

 

[KimB]

What objectively measurable policies? You can't measure the immorality of privatized health care, abortion vs. womens rights, etc.

Immorality? Nobody's talking about immorality. It's about effectiveness, about the policies having the specific effects their proponents say they will have. Republicans said that cutting taxes on the rich would raise revenue. It lowered revenue. Republicans said that abstinence-only sex education would promote abstinence. It didn't, it does the opposite. Republicans said that there was no global warming. They're wrong.

Again and again, when they say something that you can actually measure, they're wrong.

Even with economics, there's tons of dissent

Yeah, fucking morons. What kind of idiocy does it take to continue to believe that cutting taxes further will increase revenue?

There is some valid argument to be had about the effectiveness of tax cuts as stimulus, but there is simply no room for debate any longer on the idea that cutting taxes increases revenue.

 

[Sxotty]

The healthcare stuff has pretty good data as well. So we can see whether it works.

Tax cuts I think are less clear. I think it is plausible that there is a certain tax range at which a tax cut could increase revenue if it increased growth enough. We are already below that though clearly.

 

[KimB]

The healthcare stuff has pretty good data as well. So we can see whether it works.

Tax cuts I think are less clear. I think it is plausible that there is a certain tax range at which a tax cut could increase revenue if it increased growth enough. We are already below that though clearly.

That's the whole point. The Republicans have been claiming that at current levels, tax cuts will increase revenue. Paul Ryan has stepped back from this slightly by claiming that his tax cuts will be revenue-neutral, but that's still completely crazy.

 

[Mintmaster]

Immorality? Nobody's talking about immorality.

The Republican base is.

Yeah, fucking morons. What kind of idiocy does it take to continue to believe that cutting taxes further will increase revenue?

There is some valid argument to be had about the effectiveness of tax cuts as stimulus, but there is simply no room for debate any longer on the idea that cutting taxes increases revenue.

I don't think anyone is talking about increasing revenue right now. They want growth and jobs.

There's a bunch of studies out there based on empirical evidence which say tax cuts strongly increase growth. I don't agree with them, particularly because there is a tendency to enact tax cuts when the economy is primed for growth (i.e. a self fulfilling prophecy). However, the only counterargument you've mentioned is that we're in a liquidity trap, so those studies are invalid, but what scientific rationale is there to believe a theory so much more strongly than empirical evidence? Why should they think democrats are better for the economy when a majority of economists and CEOs are endorsing the republicans strategy? They're not going to do deep analysis like you and I.

It's not a scientific debate. There's no analogy to AGW.

In a nutshell, this what Mooney is saying: the best thing the AGW movement can do to actually get action taken is to stop talking so much about consensus and start talking about nuclear power, energy independence, 80% of the trade deficit being due to oil, American lives lost to urban air pollution, jobs created through renewable energy, funding for energy R&D vs. oil imports, etc. This is bridge building, especially because many of those are goals from the right wing. e.g. "if AGW is so real, then why are you against nuclear power?"

 

[KimB]

The Republican base is.

Yes, and this is sort of my point. The strategy of conflating Republican ideals with morality involves some quite vicious attacks on opposing views. But people like you and Mooney are arguing that such attacks don't work.

Except they have worked fantastically-well for the Republicans, haven't they?

 

[Sxotty]

In a nutshell, this what Mooney is saying: the best thing the AGW movement can do to actually get action taken is to stop talking so much about consensus and start talking about nuclear power, energy independence, 80% of the trade deficit being due to oil, American lives lost to urban air pollution, jobs created through renewable energy, funding for energy R&D vs. oil imports, etc. This is bridge building, especially because many of those are goals from the right wing. e.g. "if AGW is so real, then why are you against nuclear power?"

I tried that oil bit and Chanloth got mad about it

 

[KimB]

I tried that oil bit and Chanloth got mad about it

Heh. I don't think I got mad about the oil. I'm just no longer sure it's that significant.

What may be significant is the fact that the USD is the reserve currency for oil. But I don't think the imports themselves make any difference (except when there are short-term spikes in oil prices...which means that the large oil imports have the opposite effect when there are short-term dips in oil prices), because those imports have to be paid for, which pushes down the value of the dollar, which pushes up exports by the same amount imported.

 

[KimB]

In a nutshell, this what Mooney is saying: the best thing the AGW movement can do to actually get action taken is to stop talking so much about consensus and start talking about nuclear power, energy independence, 80% of the trade deficit being due to oil, American lives lost to urban air pollution, jobs created through renewable energy, funding for energy R&D vs. oil imports, etc.

Oh, one more thing on this. This is precisely the strategy that doesn't work, because it cedes the ideological ground. While it is conceivable to get some compromise in the short-run by following this sort of strategy, ceding the ideological ground just allows your opposition to pull further away, ensuring that your next compromise ends up much worse. And that's exactly what has happened in the political arena.

 

[Mintmaster]

Yes, and this is sort of my point. The strategy of conflating Republican ideals with morality involves some quite vicious attacks on opposing views.

You've completely lost track of the discussion. Republican vs. Democrat is not science. There are too many moral and philosophical issues, too many what-ifs. You can't compare the failure of strategies in moving the country to the left to strategies for increasing acceptance of AGW. It's an awful analogy.

Oh, one more thing on this. This is precisely the strategy that doesn't work, because it cedes the ideological ground. While it is conceivable to get some compromise in the short-run by following this sort of strategy, ceding the ideological ground just allows your opposition to pull further away, ensuring that your next compromise ends up much worse. And that's exactly what has happened in the political arena.

In what way is it ceding anything? Scientists aren't changing the way they research or compromising the truth, nor are they pretending to believe the anti-AGW lies/myths. This is a discussion about presentation.

If you went to a bad school where most kids don't give a shit about their education, then how would you get them to turn their life around? Show them a nerd and tell them to be like him? Of course not. You need a hook. The ideal mentor would be someone with similar beliefs - someone who plays sports, a party goer, is good with the ladies, etc - with some moderate academic achievement. Another example is a guy that doubled his salary going from assembly worker to CNC machinist using high school math. You need to provide a practical path for people to pursue education and the truth without alienating themselves.

It's the same thing with AGW. If someone with an open mind is surrounded by denialists, then he will only make his own life harder by accepting the brand of AGW presented by environmentalists. Socially, and even economically (nobody wants to pay a carbon tax), it's far more rational for him to accept the views of his peers. Therefore, your strategy will have zero success. Mooney's strategy, however, has a chance to create a gradual change by giving these people another option. Here on B3D we had some members talking about how they had to terminate friendships due to opposing political views. That's not a choice that most people will make, particularly if they aren't as attached to a cause as you are.

 

[KimB]

You've completely lost track of the discussion. Republican vs. Democrat is not science.

No. So? That's irrelevant. It's about convincing people to your point of view. The two are the exact same thing: only the underlying issues differ (and not that much, considering AGW is one significant facet of the Democrat vs. Republican debate over the past decades).

In what way is it ceding anything? Scientists aren't changing the way they research or compromising the truth, nor are they pretending to believe the anti-AGW lies/myths. This is a discussion about presentation.

Well, duh. Mooney is arguing that we should compromise on the truth when trying to present it. And that is fucking bullshit.

 

[Mintmaster]

No. So? That's irrelevant. It's about convincing people to your point of view.

It's not irrelevant. That difference is what separates subjectivity from objectivity. It changes the avenues available to do the convincing, which is the very topic we're debating.

Well, duh. Mooney is arguing that we should compromise on the truth when trying to present it. And that is fucking bullshit.

It's not compromising the truth at all. It's simply packaging it with the palatable conservative beliefs - technology, nuclear power, industry growth - and avoiding the stuff we can't prove like tales of oil/coal lobbying power, doomsday projections, tipping points, etc.

 

[KimB]

It's not irrelevant. That difference is what separates subjectivity from objectivity. It changes the avenues available to do the convincing, which is the very topic we're debating.

Uh, what the fuck? A large fraction of the political debate is a debate on objective facts. The debate on Global Warming is part of the political debate, and the Republicans have very successfully shifted the debate away from the evidence, and have been allowed to do so by accomodationists.

It's not compromising the truth at all. It's simply packaging it with the palatable conservative beliefs - technology, nuclear power, industry growth - and avoiding the stuff we can't prove like tales of oil/coal lobbying power, doomsday projections, tipping points, etc.

That's bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Packaging it with "palatable beliefs" merely allows people to continue thinking as they always have, and lets them basically ignore you altogether. It may win you some progress in the short run, but you are guaranteed to lose in the long run, because you allow the Overton window to shift by making your proposals "palatable".

 

[Mintmaster]

Uh, what the fuck? A large fraction of the political debate is a debate on objective facts.

It just isn't. I wish it was, but it isn't. The shift back to the right is due to racism, calling Obama a socialist, pointing out the lack of a recovery (unfortunately, we don't have a parallel universe to prove that spending cuts will hurt the economy), etc.

The debate on Global Warming is part of the political debate

It's a very small part. In Canada, 80% believe that there is strong evidence of AGW. Yet what happened? In 2008, the party trying to implement a carbon tax and use it to reduce income tax lost major seats. In the recent election, the Conservative party got a majority. Why? Because they care about the economy far more than the environment, and have been duped into thinking the conservatives are the best at handling the economy.

That's bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

Believe what you will. It's not bullshit. AGW happens too slowly to generate simple, clear evidence, and the mass of denialists in the US is too big and self-reinforcing to make a massive paradigm shift in their beliefs. The only way to do it is by gradually hook them into the evidence by showing how they can gain by accepting AGW. It's the same reason that atheism slowly became more and more prominent in recent centuries despite the size of its opposition - nobody could not deny the military value of science.

AGW science isn't being compromised in any way by accomodists. As for the watered down policy proposals you mention, I don't care. There's no scientific basis for attacking AGW ASAP, or making it a higher priority than other things benefitting humanity.

 

[KimB]

Believe what you will. It's not bullshit. AGW happens too slowly to generate simple, clear evidence, and the mass of denialists in the US is too big and self-reinforcing to make a massive paradigm shift in their beliefs. The only way to do it is by gradually hook them into the evidence by showing how they can gain by accepting AGW.

This does not work. It cannot work, because it just allows the opposition to shift the conversation even further from the point of view you'd like to advocate.

 

[Mintmaster]

Chalnoth, this is not a negotiation. Please get out of your head this flawed analogy of political debates.

This is about psychology and education. You will never be able to make a kid a better student by telling him he's stupid and better do something about it. You will never get even someone with a weak attachment to the denialist movement to become an outcast in his community by telling him that his peers are stupid and he's better off being a loner. You have to be smart about how you educate, and give them a reason to pay attention and learn.