Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.
Hmmm. I assumed that I just had trapped wind.
-
The "withholding belief" position means that people practically act as if they "believe the opposite", because that is what they were doing before. Being unaware of a problem has the same practical outcome as ignoring the problem.
Well, the gut feeling I get from various casual conversations with 'the man on the clapham omnibus' is that a lot of people are actively in denial, as opposed to 'withholding belief'.
But that's just a personal, unquantified gut feeling. And I am cynical enough to sometimes wonder if I'm cynical enough...
-
there is more money on the AGW gravy train for scientists, politicians and business people than any gravy train around
Really? Someone should tell all those pharma, oil, gun, tobacco, banking, mining, airline and car lobbyists that they're in the wrong business.
After all, as noted upthread, science institutions clearly need more people to deal with all the FOI requests, and clearly they can afford to pay well, given all that money you've noted is sloshing around.
-
Having made the choice to remain mostly disinterested, and thus ignorant, skepticism is a fairly natural position to take. It's a "withholding of belief", rather than a "belief in the opposite".
@Ben
I don't find much to disagree with in your analysis, but I do disagree slightly with this conclusion. My view is that most people, whether consciously or not, have weighed up the lifestyle changes that they as individuals and as societal groups would have to make, and have, consciously or sub-consciously, decided to positively reject the scientific claims.
Contemplation of the sacrifices that would have to be made in order to actually make a significant difference is far, far too huge and scary a thought for most poeple to grapple with. Far easier to go into a state of denial. If I should loudly enough, it isn't actually happening, right?
-
(& Rich, the Manhattan Project consisted of the scientific Establishment of two continents. & it wasn't a particularly isolated occurrence either:`I aim at the stars (but sometimes I hit London'?)
I'll take one lazy swipe at that with the straight razor of deconstruction, and point out that the original post didn't mention the Manhattan Project, it specifically named a single utterance by a single individual.
If I wanted to go on slashing, I'd start asking questions like: 'what was the context?'
Did he intend 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. And I for one can't wait to crispy-fry me some gooks. Out of my way, peasant, for I am a whitecoat'.
Or did he intend 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. Oh Lord forgive me for the horrendous mistake I have made.'
And in the context of context, I'd point out that there was, at the time, a war on. No-one really knew what the other side was up to, but they knew that Germany was definitely trying to develop nukes. No-one really knew what the bomb would do, or what the long-term implications were. You can't apply today's morals to yesterdays context. Hindsight is 20-20, as the cliché goes.
And a quick peek at wiki:
After the war Oppenheimer was a chief advisor to the newly created United States Atomic Energy Commission and used that position to lobby for international control of nuclear power and to avert the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. After provoking the ire of many politicians with his outspoken political opinions during the Red Scare, he had his security clearance revoked in a much-publicized and politicized hearing in 1954.
And if the original post meant 'The Manhattan Project', rather than Oppenheimer, then let's have a quick think about that.
'People' don't trust 'scientists' because of the Manhattan Project? Really? I'm finding that more than a little hard to swallow.
I could go on, and construct nuanced arguments, link to sources, and so on, but it would take me an hour or two. And I think I'd start getting a taste of what your average climatologists feels. Respond to argument, deconstruct argument, point out falsification of facts, point out facts taken out of context, end up back where we started. Rinse, repeat ad infinitum so you end up running as fast as you can just to stay in the same place.
-
Probably as good a time and place as any to paste this
onion link. -
When you have Oppenheimer saying things like 'I am become Death, destroyer of worlds', it's not hard to see why people don't trust scientists.
I once read in the paper that, like, this medical doctor guy was a serial killer.
That's why I don't trust any medical doctors any more.
-
Unless they can make them conveniently transparent as in the artist's impression.
Arrrrgh, those not be transparent, they be ghost! ships! With the legion demon crew they call the CitRats, captained by The Foul Beast that goes only by the name Rodney, and a cargo of lost! souls!
They say that on a stormy night, with the wind in the right direction, you can hear the screams of the damned citizens of Auckland, forced to endure the fallout from half-baked urban planning decisions.... for all eternity!!!
Muwahahahahahahahaaaa!!!
-
There's something about literally living in the shadow of a volcano (even an extinct one) that seems...silly.
Different from all other human behaviour how?
What fools we mortals be.
-
For the uninitiated, old-style primus camping stoves require a pre-heating step before frantic pumping of a small handle (hopefully) gets them going under their own steam. This pre-heating requires the use of a small amount of meths or similar, which is poured into a circular trough at the top of the stove. When it is ignited, it pre-heats the working parts.
Anyway, this one time, at scout camp...someone decided the primus stove wasn't getting hot enough and that the initial pouring of the meths had been too parsimonious. Naturally, the obvious solution was to pour on a bit more.
Remarkably, all that the resulting purple-blue fireball did was singe a few eyebrows, all involved living to tell the tale.