The Right on Climate Change

[Radix]

Experts in science and related areas (at least those who are sticking to an ethical approach) try to explain their best estimate of what is going on/what can be done.

That's not good enough.
For the average person, a scientist is simply an idle skeptic. And you know -- How many skeptics does it take to change a lightbulb? Actually, they won't do it, they're not sure they're really in the dark.

In contrast to Retro's depressing conspiracy theories, the scientists, engineers, etc that I know would very much like an open dialog about what is happening and what could be done. It's much more complex than just the science of, say, climate change - there are all kinds of social issues that affect what is possible, and the collateral effects of actions.

And there is the issue of the power differential between the people involved in the conversation or potentially involved in the conversation.

The average person knows, at least intuitively, that dialogue leads nowhere.

Any sensible leader, on the left or the right, needs to weigh the input from a variety of experts (in this case much broader than jut climate science), as well as the opinions and aspirations of their citizens.

How can any leader, sensible or not, weigh that??

Unfortunately, as I said above, the rise of an attitude of distrust around expert opinion has made some of these discussions very difficult.

And the scientists have earned themselves this distrust, quite predictably so.

Ironically, many of the naysayers about experts (in science and other areas) seem much more certain of their understanding of a huge variety of technical issues than I am of mine (outside of my actual areas of expertise).

Because at the end of the day, what matters is that one is confident in oneself. And if the whole world goes to hell.

[Radix]

IMO the fixation on climate change was counter productive. If the left didnt waste so much time and resources trying to convince coal country conservatives climate change was real and playing into the fossil fuel industries hands and just highlighted other benefits to getting off of fossil fuels like clean air, i think we actually woulda gotten somewhere. Almost nobody is against clean air.

If people aren't sure whether using natural resources as they like is good or not -- _morally_ good or not -- then the actual problem at hand is much bigger than can be addressed by politicians.

If people don't have pangs of conscience when they cut down a tree or kill an animal, then it's already too late for them.

[mikenz66]

Experts in science and related areas (at least those who are sticking to an ethical approach) try to explain their best estimate of what is going on/what can be done.

That's not good enough.
For the average person, a scientist is simply an idle skeptic. ...

It's unfortunate that this is the impression of so many. And a serious problem, given that so much technology that we use in our daily lives (such as the smart phones that dominates many lives) makes use of science and engineering that is so complex that even the people who designed and built them are only expert on small parts. Perhaps this is part of the problem. A few decades ago, it was possible for interested people to have a fairly good grasp of the technology they used - you could swap out tubes (valves in some countries) in a radio, disassemble a car or motorcycle, and, with luck, put it back together again and have it work. More and more, you now have to trust the factory or specialised service people, and the technology becomes indistinguishable from magic (to paraphrase Arthur C Clarke). If the situation is such that there is no trust in those who control the technology, it's no wonder there is disquiet. The difficult problem to be solved is not really a science or engineering one, but how to (return?) to a society that is based on trust.


Mike

[Sam Vara]

Experts in science and related areas (at least those who are sticking to an ethical approach) try to explain their best estimate of what is going on/what can be done.

That's not good enough.
For the average person, a scientist is simply an idle skeptic. ...

It's unfortunate that this is the impression of so many. And a serious problem, given that so much technology that we use in our daily lives (such as the smart phones that dominates many lives) makes use of science and engineering that is so complex that even the people who designed and built them are only expert on small parts. Perhaps this is part of the problem. A few decades ago, it was possible for interested people to have a fairly good grasp of the technology they used - you could swap out tubes (valves in some countries) in a radio, disassemble a car or motorcycle, and, with luck, put it back together again and have it work. More and more, you now have to trust the factory or specialised service people, and the technology becomes indistinguishable from magic (to paraphrase Arthur C Clarke). If the situation is such that there is no trust in those who control the technology, it's no wonder there is disquiet. The difficult problem to be solved is not really a science or engineering one, but how to (return?) to a society that is based on trust.


Mike

Yes, the problem is one of trust. We have little understanding of science and are forced to rely upon those who mediate between science and its public applications. In most countries, that means politicians and government employees. And big corporations. They are the ones who, for practical purposes, control that technology. Without getting too political here, public trust in politicians and the government has plummeted in most countries; possibly with good reason.

[mikenz66]

Yes, the problem is one of trust. We have little understanding of science and are forced to rely upon those who mediate between science and its public applications. In most countries, that means politicians and government employees. And big corporations. They are the ones who, for practical purposes, control that technology. Without getting too political here, public trust in politicians and the government has plummeted in most countries; possibly with good reason.

And it's not just distrust of experts in science and engineering, but of experts in many areas - economics, education, philosophy, history, religion... As you imply (I think) the problem is not so much the experts and expertise, but how it is filtered (and often ignored) by politicians, corporations, etc. Ironically, that distrust can then be harnessed as an election strategy...


Mike

[Sam Vara]

Yes, the problem is one of trust. We have little understanding of science and are forced to rely upon those who mediate between science and its public applications. In most countries, that means politicians and government employees. And big corporations. They are the ones who, for practical purposes, control that technology. Without getting too political here, public trust in politicians and the government has plummeted in most countries; possibly with good reason.

And it's not just distrust of experts in science and engineering, but of experts in many areas - economics, education, philosophy, history, religion... As you imply (I think) the problem is not so much the experts and expertise, but how it is filtered (and often ignored) by politicians, corporations, etc. Ironically, that distrust can then be harnessed as an election strategy...


Mike

Probably the defilements are pretty uniformly distributed, but the problem with the experts is that we have little chance of understanding them anyway.

[Radix]

The difficult problem to be solved is not really a science or engineering one, but how to (return?) to a society that is based on trust.

Was it ever based on trust? I see no reason to think it ever was. I was certainly less politically correct.

And trust is a two-way street. You wonder why people don't trust experts? Experts don't trust people to begin with. So why should people trust them?

[mikenz66]

The difficult problem to be solved is not really a science or engineering one, but how to (return?) to a society that is based on trust.

Was it ever based on trust? I see no reason to think it ever was. I was certainly less politically correct.

And trust is a two-way street. You wonder why people don't trust experts? Experts don't trust people to begin with. So why should people trust them?

Exploitative/oppressive behaviour is a different issue from expertise, though obviously it can make use of expertise (to manufacture weapons used to support such behaviour).


Mike

[Radix]

And it's not just distrust of experts in science and engineering, but of experts in many areas - economics, education, philosophy, history, religion... As you imply (I think) the problem is not so much the experts and expertise, but how it is filtered (and often ignored) by politicians, corporations, etc.

It's more fundamental than that. People in general (and that includes those who happen to be scientists and experts) are reluctant to pay attention or take seriously anything that requires time, energy, and heaven forbid, any other resource, such as good faith, especially when said thing is presented to them by a stranger or someone they don't already like.

And then the popular "If you can't explain it to a 6-year old, then you don't understand it yourself." This is sheer plebeian idiocity. From nuclear physics to haircuts, so many things require that a person already has a certain basis of knowledge of the matter. If they lack that basis, it's impossible for them to understand any explanation of said thing.

Further, the patronizing and condescending attitude that scientists and various experts typically have toward people isn't conducive to trust. (Not that they care, of course.)

Even at a Buddhist forum, it's clearly too much to expect for people to even read the post they're replying to. People who supposedly meditate, train their attention, practice goodwill, etc. etc. But even 280 characters is too much. And if even people like this can't do it, what can be expected from the general population?

[Radix]

Exploitative/oppressive behaviour is a different issue from expertise, though obviously it can make use of expertise (to manufacture weapons used to support such behaviour).

Staunch defenders of science and experts would have us believe that scientists and experts are somehow beyond concerns for earning money, and that they have no other agenda than to help us "reach our potential".

But of course they are out to earn money. Everyone has to do it somehow. It's bestially naive to think otherwise.

[cappuccino]

What Percent Of Our Atmosphere Is CO2?

[asksky]

Do people use their eyes to see what's going on? Why nobody care about the sky?



It's been decades since the UN started their global geoengineering. As far as I know, not matter where you are, if you look at the sky you will see the military flights working hard on weaving a greenhouse made of chemtrails. (If you happen to be in a country where the sky does not look like picrelated, I'd appreciate if you tell which on.)


And then the experts blame it to CO2, which is as precious for life as water, light or oxygen... What its more astonishing is that the few mentions of chemtrails this forum had were mostly received with mocking.

Right view.

[Bundokji]

Today, news about heatwaves are all over the news, along with climate change narrative.

It happened that i did not go out during mid day today, and when i went to visit mom in the evening, it was just another ordinary day, except for the hysteria in the news, and people's complaints the heat.

I have read on wikipedia that in Patanjali sutras, he has a different take on abhiññās:

Knowing the past, present and future;
Tolerance of heat, cold and other dualities;
Knowing the minds of others;
Checking the influence of fire, sun, water, poison, and so on;
Remaining unconquered by others.

Strangely, when one begins to have a different view about nature, he tends to experience it differently. More of a reason to let go of worldly ways .... i guess.

[Radix]

It happened that i did not go out during mid day today, and when i went to visit mom in the evening, it was just another ordinary day, except for the hysteria in the news, and people's complaints the heat.
/.../
Strangely, when one begins to have a different view about nature, he tends to experience it differently. More of a reason to let go of worldly ways .... i guess.

Try growing plants for food. You might learn something about the climate crisis.

[Bundokji]

Try growing plants for food. You might learn something about the climate crisis.

Yes, i might be missing the heroism involved in growing food in the midst of climate change!