https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgM1yhwj1mg
By William Briggs
Summary
In this speech delivered to the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change in 2015, William Briggs discusses how people's beliefs become part of their identity. He opens by discussing the differences between scientists and civilians. If a civilian is taught the earth revolves around the sun, they will usually believe it. Civilians trust the word of a scientist, even though they don't understand orbital mechanics. This belief is relatively unimportant to their daily lives, though.
He contrasts that with a belief many civilians have in UFOs. Most experts disagree. The difference between planetary motion and UFOs is that this is something they want to believe. It's part of their identity to believe in UFOs. When experts argue against UFOs, it can actually strengthen their belief. But other than boring their dinner guests, it is still a relatively harmless belief.
Just because someone has a desire to believe in something (that airplanes fly or a pill cures a disease) is not logically or psychologically wrong. People believe in these things because they have seen them work. That scientists agree is comforting, but not essential.
When it comes to climate change, civilians often strongly disagree with genuine experts. And there is such a variety of opinions among experts that it is amazing anything useful can be said about climate change. People with no understanding of climate science attack scientists who disagree with their views.
“The solution” to climate change typically involves using government power to eliminate “unfettered capitalism.” Any activities that impact the environment should be regulated or banned. True believers desire “the solution.” Advocating for it is part of their identity, so any skepticism of the solution is a personal attack against them. They demand skeptics of “the solution” be fired, sued, or even killed. If new research might unsettle their belief, then new research must be stopped. Politicians go along with it, because they believe themselves to be the solution.
Briggs has personal experience in this area. After publishing a paper critical of the climate consensus, he was threatened by civilians and investigated by members of the House and Senate. In the Soviet Union, Lysenko bullied other scientists into accepting his theories. Proponents of “politically incorrect” (the actual term they used) science were fired, arrested, and even killed.
Changing the culture will be difficult. People need to be convinced that the government is not the solution, but part of the problem. Briggs believes people are not a scourge against the environment, but a vital facet of nature.
In a 2015 speech, William Briggs talked about how people's beliefs can become part of who they are. He said there is a difference between scientists and regular people. If a scientist tells a regular person that the Earth goes around the sun, they will usually believe it. Regular people trust scientists, even if they don't understand the science. But whether or not a person believes the earth goes around the sun does not change their everyday life.
He compared that to some people believing in UFOs. This disagrees with what most experts think. The difference is that some people want to believe in aliens. Believing in UFOs becomes part of who they are. When experts say UFOs aren't real, it can make their belief even stronger. They can be annoying, but these beliefs aren't too harmful.
Just because someone wants to believe something doesn't mean it's illogical or wrong. People believe things they have seen. It's comforting if scientists agree, but not essential.
On climate change, regular people often disagree strongly with experts. Experts disagree on many things about climate change, so it's amazing they can say anything clear about it. Regular people with no training in climate science attack real scientists who disagree with them.
The "solution" to climate change usually involves using government power to stop capitalism. They want to limit or stop any activity that impacts the environment. True believers want to believe in this solution. It is part of who they are, so they feel attacked when people doubt them. Politicians go along, believing they are the solution.
Briggs has experience here. After publishing a paper disagreeing with popular climate ideas, he was threatened and investigated by Congress. In the Soviet Union, a powerful scientist named Lysenko bullied others into believing his theories. Supporters of "politically incorrect" science were punished.
Changing the culture will be hard. People need to know government is not the solution, but part of the problem. Briggs believes people are not destroying nature, but are an important part of it.
--------- Original ---------
Transcript
Now there's two camps of civilians. One believes in global warming of doom, and one not.
Now, true believers desire the solution, which itself presupposes mankind is an environmental menace to these civilians. Global warming of doom exists because the solution does not.
Contrariwise The skeptical camp distrusts the solution and so just believes in global warming of doom. But be careful here. If global warming of doom is true, then it is irrelevant that its followers come to believe it because they desire the solution. Just as it is irrelevant that if a patient believes in the efficacy of his medication because he desires health.
On the other hand, if global warming of doom is false, then it is also irrelevant that its detractors come to disbelieve because they hate the solution.
And there is no symmetry here because who is right and who am wrong depends on whether global warming of doom is true, and it is almost certainly false.
The desperate need, the desperate desire to believe in the solution is why true believers consider questions about the science of global warming, of doom, personal attacks. They lash out when they hear them. Skeptics are greedy or have an animus against the poor believers shriek denier. The science is settled. They lapse into scientific incoherence and make impossible claims like we're destroying the planet. Or that this is my favorite, that we can stop climate change.
True believers say skeptical Scientists cannot be trusted because these scientists have been have been funded by sources who do not share the true belief. They never see the irony in this. They call for the firing of skeptical scientists or seek to ban their employment. Some true believers have descended into madness and demanded skeptical scientists be prosecuted or imprisoned for crimes against humanity.
And the reason for this childishness is simple. True believers are devoted to the solution to the environment. It is part of their environmental identity. It is who they are. If they cannot be who they are, then they are nothing.
If the science is settled to their satisfaction, unsettling it by conducting new research must be prevented because that new research might prove what cannot be tolerated. And there is no escaping this predicament.
This echoes what Bob said a bit without convincing true believers that environmentalism and the solution are false. And that can't be done with science. It requires a change in their deepest personal faiths, and that's a very tough task.
Now, politicians are like civilians in the sense that most of them don't possess in-depth scientific knowledge. And this is fine. Their skills lay elsewhere, like in relying upon the judgment of people who do have this knowledge. But there is a lesser breed of politician who is happy to profit from the ignorance of the citizens he represents. This politician believes in the solution. Rather, he believes in the civilians belief in the solution. This politician sees himself as the solution. Somebody has to be in charge and it ought to be him.
A member of the House of Representatives wrote letters to employers of several scientists. This member assumed or skeptics and demanded these employers hand over information regarding the scientists, emails, funding sources and so forth. The list was in some error, amusingly, but facts are irrelevant. Political action was what counted.
The member at least, at least had the intelligence to understand that if skeptical scientists successfully refuted global warming of doom, there would be no need for the solution and thus even less need for himself. And that a group of senators wrote letters to scores of companies who might have directly or indirectly funded skeptical scientists.
The senators were displeased about, quote, scientific studies designed to confuse the public and avoid taking action to cut carbon pollution. Confuse the public, prevent the solution. This is lysenkoism, the denouncement of anti-revolutionary research. Lysenko You have to remember, Lysenko not only had scientists fired for politically incorrect research, that was Lenin's term, but he had several of them executed and banished to labor camps.
But how do we prevent future political attacks? There's only one way that I see, and that's to remove the source of power of these scurrilous politicians. And what's that? True believers. So we're right back to the hard problem of changing culture itself. Can we convince civilians that big government is not the solution but the problem? And that man, it is not an environmental evil, but a necessary facet of nature. I'm not too sanguine. I think the task is very daunting. Thank you very much.
In a 2015 speech, William Briggs talked about how people's beliefs can become part of who they are. He said there's a difference between scientists and regular people. If a regular person learns the Earth orbits the sun, they'll usually believe it. Regular people trust scientists, even without understanding the science. But believing the Earth orbits the sun doesn't really impact their daily lives.
He compared that to some people believing in UFOs. This goes against what most experts believe. The difference is that people want to believe in aliens. Believing in UFOs becomes part of their identity. When experts say UFOs aren't real, it can make their beliefs even stronger. UFO believers can be obnoxious, but it's not usually harmful to anyone.
Just because someone wants to believe something (like planes can fly or a pill cures disease) doesn't mean it's illogical or unreasonable. People believe these things because they've seen them work. It's nice if scientists agree, but not essential.
On climate change, regular people often strongly disagree with real experts. Climate scientists disagree on so many points, it's amazing they can say anything at all. People with no training in climate science attack scientists who disagree with them.
The “solution” to climate change often involves using government power to stop uncontrolled capitalism. They want to limit or ban any activity that impacts the environment. True believers want this “solution.” Advocating for it is part of their identity, so any doubt feels like a personal attack. They demand spetics be punished. Politicians go along, believing they are the solution.
Briggs has personal experience here. After publishing a paper critical of the consensus views on climate change, he was threatened by regular people and investigated by Congress. In the Soviet Union, Lysenko bullied scientists into accepting his theories. “Politically incorrect” science supporters were fired, arrested, or killed.
Changing the culture will be hard. People need to be convinced government is not the solution, but part of the problem. Briggs believes humans are not destroying the environment, but are an important part of nature.
Homeschool:
--------- Original ---------
Transcript
Now there's two camps of civilians. One believes in global warming of doom, and one not.
Now, true believers desire the solution, which itself presupposes mankind is an environmental menace to these civilians. Global warming of doom exists because the solution does not.
Contrariwise The skeptical camp distrusts the solution and so just believes in global warming of doom. But be careful here. If global warming of doom is true, then it is irrelevant that its followers come to believe it because they desire the solution. Just as it is irrelevant that if a patient believes in the efficacy of his medication because he desires health.
On the other hand, if global warming of doom is false, then it is also irrelevant that its detractors come to disbelieve because they hate the solution.
And there is no symmetry here because who is right and who am wrong depends on whether global warming of doom is true, and it is almost certainly false.
The desperate need, the desperate desire to believe in the solution is why true believers consider questions about the science of global warming, of doom, personal attacks. They lash out when they hear them. Skeptics are greedy or have an animus against the poor believers shriek denier. The science is settled. They lapse into scientific incoherence and make impossible claims like we're destroying the planet. Or that this is my favorite, that we can stop climate change.
True believers say skeptical Scientists cannot be trusted because these scientists have been have been funded by sources who do not share the true belief. They never see the irony in this. They call for the firing of skeptical scientists or seek to ban their employment. Some true believers have descended into madness and demanded skeptical scientists be prosecuted or imprisoned for crimes against humanity.
And the reason for this childishness is simple. True believers are devoted to the solution to the environment. It is part of their environmental identity. It is who they are. If they cannot be who they are, then they are nothing.
If the science is settled to their satisfaction, unsettling it by conducting new research must be prevented because that new research might prove what cannot be tolerated. And there is no escaping this predicament.
This echoes what Bob said a bit without convincing true believers that environmentalism and the solution are false. And that can't be done with science. It requires a change in their deepest personal faiths, and that's a very tough task.
Now, politicians are like civilians in the sense that most of them don't possess in-depth scientific knowledge. And this is fine. Their skills lay elsewhere, like in relying upon the judgment of people who do have this knowledge. But there is a lesser breed of politician who is happy to profit from the ignorance of the citizens he represents. This politician believes in the solution. Rather, he believes in the civilians belief in the solution. This politician sees himself as the solution. Somebody has to be in charge and it ought to be him.
A member of the House of Representatives wrote letters to employers of several scientists. This member assumed or skeptics and demanded these employers hand over information regarding the scientists, emails, funding sources and so forth. The list was in some error, amusingly, but facts are irrelevant. Political action was what counted.
The member at least, at least had the intelligence to understand that if skeptical scientists successfully refuted global warming of doom, there would be no need for the solution and thus even less need for himself. And that a group of senators wrote letters to scores of companies who might have directly or indirectly funded skeptical scientists.
The senators were displeased about, quote, scientific studies designed to confuse the public and avoid taking action to cut carbon pollution. Confuse the public, prevent the solution. This is lysenkoism, the denouncement of anti-revolutionary research. Lysenko You have to remember, Lysenko not only had scientists fired for politically incorrect research, that was Lenin's term, but he had several of them executed and banished to labor camps.
But how do we prevent future political attacks? There's only one way that I see, and that's to remove the source of power of these scurrilous politicians. And what's that? True believers. So we're right back to the hard problem of changing culture itself. Can we convince civilians that big government is not the solution but the problem? And that man, it is not an environmental evil, but a necessary facet of nature. I'm not too sanguine. I think the task is very daunting. Thank you very much.
Transcript
Now there's two camps of civilians. One believes in global warming of doom, and one not.
Now, true believers desire the solution, which itself presupposes mankind is an environmental menace to these civilians. Global warming of doom exists because the solution does not.
Contrariwise The skeptical camp distrusts the solution and so just believes in global warming of doom. But be careful here. If global warming of doom is true, then it is irrelevant that its followers come to believe it because they desire the solution. Just as it is irrelevant that if a patient believes in the efficacy of his medication because he desires health.
On the other hand, if global warming of doom is false, then it is also irrelevant that its detractors come to disbelieve because they hate the solution.
And there is no symmetry here because who is right and who am wrong depends on whether global warming of doom is true, and it is almost certainly false.
The desperate need, the desperate desire to believe in the solution is why true believers consider questions about the science of global warming, of doom, personal attacks. They lash out when they hear them. Skeptics are greedy or have an animus against the poor believers shriek denier. The science is settled. They lapse into scientific incoherence and make impossible claims like we're destroying the planet. Or that this is my favorite, that we can stop climate change.
True believers say skeptical Scientists cannot be trusted because these scientists have been have been funded by sources who do not share the true belief. They never see the irony in this. They call for the firing of skeptical scientists or seek to ban their employment. Some true believers have descended into madness and demanded skeptical scientists be prosecuted or imprisoned for crimes against humanity.
And the reason for this childishness is simple. True believers are devoted to the solution to the environment. It is part of their environmental identity. It is who they are. If they cannot be who they are, then they are nothing.
If the science is settled to their satisfaction, unsettling it by conducting new research must be prevented because that new research might prove what cannot be tolerated. And there is no escaping this predicament.
This echoes what Bob said a bit without convincing true believers that environmentalism and the solution are false. And that can't be done with science. It requires a change in their deepest personal faiths, and that's a very tough task.
Now, politicians are like civilians in the sense that most of them don't possess in-depth scientific knowledge. And this is fine. Their skills lay elsewhere, like in relying upon the judgment of people who do have this knowledge. But there is a lesser breed of politician who is happy to profit from the ignorance of the citizens he represents. This politician believes in the solution. Rather, he believes in the civilians belief in the solution. This politician sees himself as the solution. Somebody has to be in charge and it ought to be him.
A member of the House of Representatives wrote letters to employers of several scientists. This member assumed or skeptics and demanded these employers hand over information regarding the scientists, emails, funding sources and so forth. The list was in some error, amusingly, but facts are irrelevant. Political action was what counted.
The member at least, at least had the intelligence to understand that if skeptical scientists successfully refuted global warming of doom, there would be no need for the solution and thus even less need for himself. And that a group of senators wrote letters to scores of companies who might have directly or indirectly funded skeptical scientists.
The senators were displeased about, quote, scientific studies designed to confuse the public and avoid taking action to cut carbon pollution. Confuse the public, prevent the solution. This is lysenkoism, the denouncement of anti-revolutionary research. Lysenko You have to remember, Lysenko not only had scientists fired for politically incorrect research, that was Lenin's term, but he had several of them executed and banished to labor camps.
But how do we prevent future political attacks? There's only one way that I see, and that's to remove the source of power of these scurrilous politicians. And what's that? True believers. So we're right back to the hard problem of changing culture itself. Can we convince civilians that big government is not the solution but the problem? And that man, it is not an environmental evil, but a necessary facet of nature. I'm not too sanguine. I think the task is very daunting. Thank you very much.
About the Author: William Briggs
One Comment
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Excellent. I’ve tried to have these exact conversations with people I know who were completely overtaken by the propaganda of climate change, covid, etc. I learned a new term, “Lysenkoism” which is EXACTLY what we are seeing today.