prop_joe wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:34 am
Correct me if i'm off here... there hasn't been too much of it in general but doesn't the majority if not all of the ignorant dumb sh*t seem to come overwhelmingly from the
pro side??
... just like the real world i guess
downunder wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 am
Do I have a correct feeling that all challengers are in fact Americans?
Please challenge my feeling.
Thanks
There are many things going on here - to many to cover all of them. But let me focus on a three.
First, you need to look up "tendencies" for yourself. And not just the book defintion, but also how that word is used, misused, and misunderstood. Once you have done that read on.
"Tendency" is a general statistical term denoting any where from a 51% probability to a 99% probability that something is true in a population or as a result of an experiment. But for our sake, lets just focus on how tendency can mean as little as 55-60% probability.
In the downsy's and propy's suppositions above, there is only the "tendency" for those suppositions to be true. downsy got it completely wrong when he stated "all". propy got it right when he stated "overwhelmingly".
downsy would be correct in his observations that many of the challenges to "climate change enthusiasts" come from the US. This is because of the tendency (not all, but maybe a slight maority) for US citizens to come from a background of historically successfully challenging authority and the narrative presented by an authority. The the lack of a tendency (could be as high as 49%) of challenges coming from outside the US is likely due to the tendency of those people to NOT successfully challenge authority or the narrative presented by that authority. Thus there is an observable tendency for those who do not challenge "climate change enthusiasts" from abroad where "challenging" is looked upon unfavorably, or has had drastic consequences for the population.
Second, there is an underlying psychology that downsy is presenting in his statement. And that is the tendency to assume all the bad in the world is in your enemies, and all the good is in you and those who agree with you. Thus while downsy is fairly educated, well enough to know what is wrong with saying "all" in his statement, he still had somewhat of a "Freudian slip" when he choose the word "all" instead of most or many.
But propy is somewhat wrong in his statement also. This is because he is failing to recognize that the "craziest" and "most absurd" gets the most press coverage as it stirs up discussion and increases viewership. Divisiveness sells, and those most successful in selling that divisiveness go on to succeed and sell more. Also, given the corporate press's demonstrably overwhelming tendency to support the narrative presented by "climate change enthusiasts", but because of the lack of hard evidence, most who truly believe in the scientific method remove themselves from the discussion. This leaves those who are "climate change religions fanatics" and those looking for personal gain to advocate for "climate change enthusiasts". So press bias, and the "cant look away from a train wreck happening" create the situation that propy is observing. But this apparent public image presented is not necessarily similar to the reality outside of mainstream media coverage.
Third, in countries with partial or full democracy, the government tends to cater to popular ideas and exploit those ideas for their own benefit. Given the inability of the average person just to distinguish between climate and weather, or even understand that there are some things that science cannot fully explain yet, there is a tendency for the majority of people to believe in the "gloom and doom" that "climate change enthusiasts" sell. Thus these governments see the opportunity for more power and control of their citizens in a widely believed, but unproven/currently unprovable idea. And increasing regulation and taxation, along with creating "high paying do nothing" jobs for the friends and family of those politicians, is their end goal.
In countries with a dictatorial government, the government silences all challenges to the state approved idea. Thus you will find a strong tendency of people living under dictatorial regimes to believe what is often the only source of information for the state chosen narrative allowed to reach them. And just like in western climate science, pointing out holes in the "AGW" narrative can be extremely costly to those in power pushing their narrative.