[PowerLine] SETTLED SCIENCE: LIBERALS MORE CLOSED-MINDED AND INTOLERANT THAN CONSERVATIVES

Ya, I was being sarcastic. Hence why I referenced your insincere moral dilemma of "intolerance".

 

Because you are purposefully replacing the term "intolerance" with "disagreeing". Unlike the people that I am "not tolerant" of, I really don't express a desire for the government to oppress their expression or have a desire to "get out". I just vehemently disagree with them. I know you know this.

It's a common tactic expressed by trolls online. You express a mere disagreement and they retort "why are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech!??"

Are you "intolerant" of Nazi ideology? And if you are, does that make you "intolerant"? If so, then does the term "intolerance" really have a moral claim to it at all?

 

You must have been an awful Democrat...

 

What is the criteria for good vs bad?

 

Well there's Jon Haidt's research, where the evidence suggests the left simply doesn't understand the right, whereas the right does understand the left.

Basically what he did was ask a series of questions, and then had them answer, what do you think, and then what do you think a person of the other political leaning thinks, which was used as the basis for his moral foundations hypothesis.

From there, they've develop a huge dataset, which does indeed demonstrate that the left has lower tolerance, which really shouldn't be surprising given that inability to understand people has been a constant source of conflict for the existence of the human race.

 

Hi, @Os Trigonum. I'm not really down with continuing beyond what I already tried to type out as collegially and as clearly as I could. So, this will be my last (I hope?) climate related post after hundreds of very useless posts over the years on this topic. So don't beat yourself up for not "hitting something harder." It would not have made much of a dent on my old head in any case.

I would listen to Judith Curry before Steph Curry, for sure, but otherwise, I can see no valid reason to value her views over those of hundreds of other climate scientists. You are still focusingkeenly (at least on this topic, on this BBS) on people like Judith Curry who espouses a contrarian view that you seem to really resonate with. That's fine. And you still seem more interested in the sociology and psychology and the politics and the argument than just the basic science. That's okay too. But we're orthogonal in that sense and would really only talk past each other.

I could recommend hundreds of different names. Here's just one I would trust a lot more than Curry, based on lifetime work and having met him and talked with him, and moreover him having advised 7 different presidential administrations on the issue of climate. He's now deceased, but you can find his very even-handed, bipartisan-leaning, clearly explained take on the whole thing all over the place. Here he is:
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/References/Biography.html

And if anyone is interested in a good level-headed summary of the consensus and what the rest of this century will probably be like, the excellent magazine New Scientist has just finished publishing a three part series on what the next +1.5 ˚C will manifest on the globe.
As I've said probably 100 times, I hope the consensus is wrong. I hope Schneider and all the others are WRONG. I hope the models are wrong.

In sum, I've looked at this data for 30 years though it's not my field. I've had numerous conversations with people who are deeply embedded in it. I've attended deep-dive talks into the data and the analysis and the modeling. I think the consensus carries a lot of weight. Until that consensus suddenly changes, or substantially updated data trends arrive, I don't personally see a need to re-examine my take on it. I'm just too busy and am interested in other things. And I know I won't convince anyone of anything here in any event.

But let me share what I've observed from the skeptic / denialist community over 30 years. It's been a stepwise evolution, and I don't think I'm exaggerating.

1. Oh, it is not warming. You are crazy. The data is too noisy and you aren't doing it right. (Muller even started here, kind of.) A few ppm of CO2 is so tiny compared to all the other atmospheric components -- give us a break!
2. Okay, it was warming. We can see that. But now it's stopped -- the pause! -- and you can't explain it. If you can't explain the last few years, then your models are full of crap.
3. Okay, okay. everything is still warming, but there's no reliable way you can say humans have anything to do with that.
4. Okay, okay, okay. Humans have some role in all this, but it's a minor role, at most. Again, it's only whatever hundred ppm, a trace gaseous component. You guys are crazy.
5. Well, humans may play a major role, but you cannot say they are 100% of the cause, you alarmists. And the change will happen so slowly that you need to just relax. It's not going to be a big deal. (I think this is where you personally are right now. And I hope it won't be a big deal.)

The argument for the sake of argument is evolving, as those kinds of pursuits always do. The political and semantic goalposts just move and move. We see the same thing with certain political administrations, in real time.

Now, the scientific consensus has updated measurements and predictions, and they've been ridiculed for adjusting semantics (global warming to climate change, as if that was a conspiracy, sigh), but the message has been really consistent: if we keep putting carbon in this atmosphere of ours, we will retain more heat on our planet than we reflect and emit to space. Therefore, there will be warming and more energy in the atmosphere and we will see tangible effects. That message has not changed in 30 years, as far as I can tell. Contrast that to the contrarian sequence.

If I may, I can point out something even in this current thread between us. It seems to me you went from discounting climate scientists b/c they don't really seem that worried or modifying their own behavior to (after I posted some info about those scientists) this new one: okay, they do seem worried, but Curry says pathologically so! Again, that's okay with me, and maybe there's an interesting point to be made about group psychology but it doesn't interest me much in this case. The nuance of argument and social factors pale, to me, against the mountain of data and basic science of the greenhouse gases. The useful and interesting policy argument now would probably be about mitigation and adaptation.

Cheers.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I read your original replies (the ones that ran up against our word limit ). I appreciated you sharing all those thoughts, and I've enjoyed some of our other exchanges too. I agreed with some points and disagreed with others. So the msg above is less a judgment on that earlier stuff but it's just me saying "here's all I've got for ya, and I prob ain't reading more Curry, not even Seth or Aisha."

 

Liberals are just smarter and more educated, so they know they are right.

DD

 

How do you pretend that a corporate campus is a benefit to the poor?

 

The meat market isn't a residential area - there are no poor living there.