My guess is a lot of people pine for the level of deceit and incompetence from the George W. Bush era. What's happening now is really quite something else...
it seems underappreciated just how much permanent cultural destruction has been caused by this shift by Republicans to just lying about almost everything almost all the time. sure, politicians have lied about stuff in the past, and massaged the truth and spun, but Trump & Co just get up every day and tell you the sky is made of bananas and water is naturally fluorescent pink.
it would be bad enough untangling that, but something like a third of US adults have just completely checked out of consensus reality and either believe all that or just think the banana-ness of the sky and natural luminosity of water is some sort of debatable value that's been hitherto suppressed by woke muslims transes or something.
> The thing that paints a clear picture to me is, the Republican party are always on the assault. They have endless bad things to say, blame to cast. They are out for destruction.
Are you suggesting this effect is somehow not applicable to other political movements?
Oh, no, not at all: any political movement built around negativity & anger is probably highly dangerous and bad and should be thrown out!
We absolutely need to be struggling again the things that dog us & hurt us too. But when that dominates your party, when you have more blame than concrete useful things you are offering, that's usually an incredibly fantastically bad sign.
The virality of negativity only further heightens the crisis of concern here.
> If the Democrats are lying to defend trans people or immigrants or school lunch or head start... is that really a bad lie?
Yes. Yes it is.
If you want to defend things that are worth defending, use the truth to do it, not lies. If you use lies, then all the other side has to do to destroy your defense is to expose the lie.
The thing that paints a clear picture to me is, the Republican party are always on the assault. They have endless bad things to say, blame to cast. They are out for destruction.
If the Democrats are lying to defend trans people or immigrants or school lunch or head start... is that really a bad lie?
I think that's extremely telling, about what's a lie and what isnt. But let's just say, both parties are liars: there's still only one party trying to destroy opportunity & excellent, trying to cut the throat of the USA.
Posts like this make me wonder how far the overton window has to shift until someone notices they have left the continent. Maybe take a step back and look around to notice that the destruction you describe after less than a month has been happening to the other side for almost two decades. But the other side is evil and wrong so why even bother.
I understand that people on the right believe that to be true.
But, in fact, things like anthropogenic climate change that the right refused to acknowledge, and believed that the media was lying to them about, are true.
It matters what is actually true. The fact that the two sides may have felt the same isn't relevant. The truth is that it wasn't the same.
Another factor: Republicans think it's authoritarianism when the mainstream media doesn't tell them the things they prefer to believe. But here's another clue for them: It's only authoritarianism when the government uses its monopoly on power to force the media to say what they say. It's not authoritarianism when the media says something because they think it's true, or even when they say it because they are trying to please an audience that mostly thinks it's true.
Sorry, but I reflect a LOT. I'm well aware of the media's limitations the limitations of scientists and that, for example, the CDC is wrong at times. But the situation being discussed is not comparable. I understand however, that for someone on the right who believes Trump's constant lies, a way must be found for understanding how those on the left can disagree.
> For example, James Hansen predicted the west side highway in NY would be underwater by 2008. I don't want Hansen stripped of any credentials or anything like that. But it's reasonable for me to ask that he make a public statement acknowledging his error.
There is a bell curve distribution of views on any subject. You can always find the most extreme case if you want to. It sounds like James Hansen is one of the most extreme cases on one side. You can also find extreme cases on the other side who were proven wrong.
I notice that you aren't interested in them making statements acknowledging their errors. I wonder why.
> publish all data and source code for all climatology papers.
These are scientists doing their research. They come to their conclusions. If all their data, source code, etc. were made open, people who don't want to acknowledge climate change will cherrypick and find a few inevitable errors and claim they disprove the consensus of scientists, akin to the way you picked James Hanson above. If you want to believe the scientists are involved in some kind of collusion, you will, whether or not they open all those aspects their research. Very simply, it isn't worth the trouble and that's why it's not being done.
> Some code once leaked from the Climate Research Unit and it included hardcoded values and a comment that their person was to "hide the decline."
Yes, there are dishonest scientists on all sides of any question that has a large number of scientists involved, just as is true in any field. Finding one of them should not be new information. You should predict it, and when it happens, say "Yep, just as I predicted!".
What you definitely shouldn't do is cherrypick it and pretend it proves anything, or pay any attention to anyone who does so.
It doesn't invalidate the position that that scientist's dishonest research appeared to be supporting, which is also supported by the overwhelming majority of honest scientists.
> Both of these points are imminently reasonable and if you make any excuses or push back in the slightest, then I am absolutely justified to retain my skepticism.
Go right ahead! I will not reply further in this subthread.
With regard to the first thing you quoted, I was pointing out that you believe that scientists who are on an extreme of disagreeing with what you want to hear should make a statement saying they are wrong, but you don't seem to feel that way about people who are on the extreme of agreeing with what you want to hear.
Picking an extreme example that seems to support what you want to believe, or a belief you want to convey, without doing the same thing on the other side, is cherrypicking.
With regard to the second quote, by opening their work I meant going to the trouble of putting their code on github, etc., and putting all their data in some public repository. That just isn't usually done by researchers, and I don't see any reason climate researchers should have different standards applied to them than other researchers do. But sure, if you or someone wants to pay them for their time in making there data more available than is normally the case, go right ahead! I certainly have no objection to their sharing. It's only a matter of the fact that researchers don't normally bother to go to that trouble. They have other things to do.
And I don't think it will serve any purpose, since those who are convinced by cherrypicking, which proves absolutely nothing, will continue to be convinced by cherrypicking. Errors will definitely be found if all the data and code are made publicly available given the fact that there are thousands of studies. They won't prove anything because in the majority of cases, the research will be sound, as it usually is. Again, all it will mean is: "I knew errors would be found, and by golly, they were!" But people who you apparently listen to will pretend it proves something else. That's fine. They already con you with cherrypicking; they would continue to, and that's all. It makes no difference either way. So I'm not against the data and code being put in some open place; I just don't see any reason to bother. It won't change anything.
Apparently you disagree; I very much doubt you would feel the same if the positions of the majority of scientists were reversed. But whatever. You are obviously free to believe what you want.
You can even insist that those scientists who say the Moon isn't made of green cheese put all their data in some public repository and their code on Github. These guys might back you: https://www.facebook.com/greencheesesociety/
> For example, James Hansen predicted the west side highway in NY would be underwater by 2008
This is a good example of how the fossil fuel companies create the impression of uncertainty by finding any possible cause for doubt, exaggerating it, and then claiming it discredits entire careers or even the field. I’ve heard that claim from many people over the years but when you look at it you realize how weak it is. That was not in a peer-reviewed publican, or even a single claim:
In 1988, he was speaking casually with a reporter who asked him to speculate about what would happen 40 years later if CO2 doubled. The reporter put that anecdote in the book.
In 2001, the reporter gave an interview to Salon and briefly mentioned the conversation but misremembered the timing and left out the most important claim about doubling CO2 entirely.
This seems like an excellent distraction from the fact that the actual scientific consensus has been consistent since the 1980s and the publications like IPCC forecasts have proven quite accurate.
The reason, of course, is that scientists have already been doing what you’re asking for. Those papers and reports represent enormous amounts of time spent creating and critically reviewing experiments, models, data, and thinking of new ways to cross check them. It would a career-making move to find a significant flaw, and the idea that there’s some perfectly hermetic conspiracy is laughable if you’ve ever been around a group of scientists.
Now, contrast that with the deniers who promote those talking points. They get lavish funding from a range of industries (some got their start on behalf of the tobacco companies) and they’ve played games which are familiar to anyone who has dealt with creationists where they toss out various theories and move on to new ones as the old ones are disproven. While scientists have been converging on the truth from a variety of independent sources, the deniers have been all over the map and wrong in many different directions. If there are concerns about openness and reputation, the double standard is quite striking.
LOL! You literally just linked to the exact thing that I referred to! Did you miss it? I said that Hansen was dumb enough to repeat his prediction, but bump the timeline to 2028! You literally just linked to Hansen saying that!
In 1998, he was wrong about 2008. But he doubled-down and said it'll be underwater in 2028. I criticized him for 1998 and you just linked me to him repeating it for 2028!
Yes, you said something incorrect. I linked to it so you could read and realize your mistakes, starting with the fact that the error wasn’t even made by the person you’re hung up on and that the precondition of doubling CO2 hasn’t been met yet.
I can't really fathom how disconnected from reality you have become if you honestly believe this. I do hope you drift back to consensus reality at some point.
18 U.S.C. § 1001 is a federal law that makes it illegal to knowingly lie or make false statements. This includes falsifying documents, concealing information, or making fraudulent statements.
30 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 80.7 ms ] threadit would be bad enough untangling that, but something like a third of US adults have just completely checked out of consensus reality and either believe all that or just think the banana-ness of the sky and natural luminosity of water is some sort of debatable value that's been hitherto suppressed by woke muslims transes or something.
Are you suggesting this effect is somehow not applicable to other political movements?
We absolutely need to be struggling again the things that dog us & hurt us too. But when that dominates your party, when you have more blame than concrete useful things you are offering, that's usually an incredibly fantastically bad sign.
The virality of negativity only further heightens the crisis of concern here.
Yes. Yes it is.
If you want to defend things that are worth defending, use the truth to do it, not lies. If you use lies, then all the other side has to do to destroy your defense is to expose the lie.
I think that's extremely telling, about what's a lie and what isnt. But let's just say, both parties are liars: there's still only one party trying to destroy opportunity & excellent, trying to cut the throat of the USA.
But, in fact, things like anthropogenic climate change that the right refused to acknowledge, and believed that the media was lying to them about, are true.
It matters what is actually true. The fact that the two sides may have felt the same isn't relevant. The truth is that it wasn't the same.
Another factor: Republicans think it's authoritarianism when the mainstream media doesn't tell them the things they prefer to believe. But here's another clue for them: It's only authoritarianism when the government uses its monopoly on power to force the media to say what they say. It's not authoritarianism when the media says something because they think it's true, or even when they say it because they are trying to please an audience that mostly thinks it's true.
There is a bell curve distribution of views on any subject. You can always find the most extreme case if you want to. It sounds like James Hansen is one of the most extreme cases on one side. You can also find extreme cases on the other side who were proven wrong.
I notice that you aren't interested in them making statements acknowledging their errors. I wonder why.
> publish all data and source code for all climatology papers.
These are scientists doing their research. They come to their conclusions. If all their data, source code, etc. were made open, people who don't want to acknowledge climate change will cherrypick and find a few inevitable errors and claim they disprove the consensus of scientists, akin to the way you picked James Hanson above. If you want to believe the scientists are involved in some kind of collusion, you will, whether or not they open all those aspects their research. Very simply, it isn't worth the trouble and that's why it's not being done.
> Some code once leaked from the Climate Research Unit and it included hardcoded values and a comment that their person was to "hide the decline."
Yes, there are dishonest scientists on all sides of any question that has a large number of scientists involved, just as is true in any field. Finding one of them should not be new information. You should predict it, and when it happens, say "Yep, just as I predicted!".
What you definitely shouldn't do is cherrypick it and pretend it proves anything, or pay any attention to anyone who does so.
It doesn't invalidate the position that that scientist's dishonest research appeared to be supporting, which is also supported by the overwhelming majority of honest scientists.
> Both of these points are imminently reasonable and if you make any excuses or push back in the slightest, then I am absolutely justified to retain my skepticism.
Go right ahead! I will not reply further in this subthread.
With regard to the first thing you quoted, I was pointing out that you believe that scientists who are on an extreme of disagreeing with what you want to hear should make a statement saying they are wrong, but you don't seem to feel that way about people who are on the extreme of agreeing with what you want to hear.
Picking an extreme example that seems to support what you want to believe, or a belief you want to convey, without doing the same thing on the other side, is cherrypicking.
With regard to the second quote, by opening their work I meant going to the trouble of putting their code on github, etc., and putting all their data in some public repository. That just isn't usually done by researchers, and I don't see any reason climate researchers should have different standards applied to them than other researchers do. But sure, if you or someone wants to pay them for their time in making there data more available than is normally the case, go right ahead! I certainly have no objection to their sharing. It's only a matter of the fact that researchers don't normally bother to go to that trouble. They have other things to do.
And I don't think it will serve any purpose, since those who are convinced by cherrypicking, which proves absolutely nothing, will continue to be convinced by cherrypicking. Errors will definitely be found if all the data and code are made publicly available given the fact that there are thousands of studies. They won't prove anything because in the majority of cases, the research will be sound, as it usually is. Again, all it will mean is: "I knew errors would be found, and by golly, they were!" But people who you apparently listen to will pretend it proves something else. That's fine. They already con you with cherrypicking; they would continue to, and that's all. It makes no difference either way. So I'm not against the data and code being put in some open place; I just don't see any reason to bother. It won't change anything.
Apparently you disagree; I very much doubt you would feel the same if the positions of the majority of scientists were reversed. But whatever. You are obviously free to believe what you want.
You can even insist that those scientists who say the Moon isn't made of green cheese put all their data in some public repository and their code on Github. These guys might back you: https://www.facebook.com/greencheesesociety/
I'm done here.
This is a good example of how the fossil fuel companies create the impression of uncertainty by finding any possible cause for doubt, exaggerating it, and then claiming it discredits entire careers or even the field. I’ve heard that claim from many people over the years but when you look at it you realize how weak it is. That was not in a peer-reviewed publican, or even a single claim:
In 1988, he was speaking casually with a reporter who asked him to speculate about what would happen 40 years later if CO2 doubled. The reporter put that anecdote in the book.
In 2001, the reporter gave an interview to Salon and briefly mentioned the conversation but misremembered the timing and left out the most important claim about doubling CO2 entirely.
https://skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-ab...
This seems like an excellent distraction from the fact that the actual scientific consensus has been consistent since the 1980s and the publications like IPCC forecasts have proven quite accurate.
The reason, of course, is that scientists have already been doing what you’re asking for. Those papers and reports represent enormous amounts of time spent creating and critically reviewing experiments, models, data, and thinking of new ways to cross check them. It would a career-making move to find a significant flaw, and the idea that there’s some perfectly hermetic conspiracy is laughable if you’ve ever been around a group of scientists.
Now, contrast that with the deniers who promote those talking points. They get lavish funding from a range of industries (some got their start on behalf of the tobacco companies) and they’ve played games which are familiar to anyone who has dealt with creationists where they toss out various theories and move on to new ones as the old ones are disproven. While scientists have been converging on the truth from a variety of independent sources, the deniers have been all over the map and wrong in many different directions. If there are concerns about openness and reputation, the double standard is quite striking.
LOL! You literally just linked to the exact thing that I referred to! Did you miss it? I said that Hansen was dumb enough to repeat his prediction, but bump the timeline to 2028! You literally just linked to Hansen saying that!
In 1998, he was wrong about 2008. But he doubled-down and said it'll be underwater in 2028. I criticized him for 1998 and you just linked me to him repeating it for 2028!
Why are your beliefs based on errors like this?
be well.
You can always count on Bloomberg to do the dirty work...
https://youtu.be/w-BdI2WQPLY