https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgM1yhwj1mg
By William Briggs
Summary
' En este discurso pronunciado en la Décima Conferencia Internacional sobre Cambio Climático en 2015, William Briggs discute cómo las creencias de las personas se convierten en parte de su identidad. Comienza discutiendo las diferencias entre los científicos y los civiles. Si a un civil se le enseña que la tierra gira alrededor del sol, generalmente lo creerán. Los civiles confían en la palabra de un científico, aunque no entiendan la mecánica orbital. Esta creencia es relativamente poco importante para su vida diaria, sin embargo. Contrasta eso con una creencia que muchos civiles tienen en los OVNIs. La mayoría de los expertos no están de acuerdo. La diferencia entre el movimiento planetario y los OVNIs es que esto es algo en lo que quieren creer. Es parte de su identidad creer en los OVNIs. Cuando los expertos argumentan contra los OVNIs, en realidad puede fortalecer su creencia. Pero aparte de aburrir a sus invitados a cenar, sigue siendo una creencia relativamente inofensiva. El hecho de que alguien tenga el deseo de creer en algo (que los aviones vuelan o una pastilla cura una enfermedad) no es lógicamente ni psicológicamente incorrecto. La gente cree en estas cosas porque las han visto funcionar. El hecho de que los científicos estén de acuerdo es reconfortante, pero no esencial. Cuando se trata de cambio climático, los civiles a menudo están en total desacuerdo con los expertos genuinos. Y hay tal variedad de opiniones entre los expertos que es asombroso que se pueda decir algo útil sobre el cambio climático. Personas sin entendimiento de la ciencia del clima atacan a los científicos que no comparten sus puntos de vista. "La solución" al cambio climático generalmente implica el uso del poder gubernamental para eliminar el "capitalismo desenfrenado". Cualquier actividad que impacte el medio ambiente debe ser regulada o prohibida. Los verdaderos creyentes desean "la solución". Abogar por ella es parte de su identidad, por lo que cualquier escepticismo acerca de la solución es un ataque personal contra ellos. Exigen que los escépticos de "la solución" sean despedidos, demandados o incluso asesinados. Si una nueva investigación podría desestabilizar su creencia, entonces la nueva investigación debe detenerse. Los políticos siguen adelante, porque creen ser ellos mismos la solución. Briggs tiene experiencia personal en este campo. Después de publicar un artículo crítico del consenso climático, fue amenazado por civiles e investigado por miembros de la Casa y el Senado. En la Unión Soviética, Lysenko intimidó a otros científicos para que aceptaran sus teorías. Los defensores de la ciencia "políticamente incorrecta" (el término real que utilizaron) fueron despedidos, arrestados e incluso asesinados. Cambiar la cultura será difícil. La gente necesita estar convencida de que el gobierno no es la solución, sino parte del problema. Briggs cree que las personas no son una plaga para el medio ambiente, sino un aspecto vital de la naturaleza. '
' En un discurso de 2015, William Briggs habló sobre cómo las creencias de las personas pueden llegar a ser parte de quienes son. Dijo que existe una diferencia entre los científicos y las personas regulares. Si un científico le dice a una persona regular que la Tierra gira alrededor del sol, generalmente lo creerán. Las personas regulares confían en los científicos, incluso si no entienden la ciencia. Pero si una persona cree o no que la tierra gira alrededor del sol no cambia su vida cotidiana. Comparó esto con algunas personas que creen en los OVNI. Esto discrepa con lo que piensan la mayoría de los expertos. La diferencia es que algunas personas quieren creer en los extraterrestres. Creer en los OVNI se convierte en parte de quienes son. Cuando los expertos dicen que los OVNI no son reales, puede hacer que su creencia sea aún más fuerte. Pueden ser molestos, pero estas creencias no son demasiado dañinas. Solo porque alguien quiere creer en algo no significa que sea ilógico o incorrecto. Las personas creen en cosas que han visto. Es reconfortante si los científicos están de acuerdo, pero no es esencial. Sobre el cambio climático, las personas regulares a menudo discrepan fuertemente con los expertos. Los expertos discrepan en muchas cosas sobre el cambio climático, así que es asombroso que puedan decir algo claro al respecto. Las personas regulares sin formación en ciencias climáticas atacan a los verdaderos científicos que discrepan con ellas. La "solución" al cambio climático generalmente implica usar el poder del gobierno para detener el capitalismo. Quieren limitar o detener cualquier actividad que impacte el medio ambiente. Los verdaderos creyentes quieren creer en esta solución. Es parte de quienes son, por lo que se sienten atacados cuando la gente duda de ellos. Los políticos siguen adelante, creyendo que son la solución. Briggs tiene experiencia aquí. Después de publicar un paper en desacuerdo con las ideas populares sobre el clima, fue amenazado e investigado por el Congreso. En la Unión Soviética, un científico poderoso llamado Lysenko intimidó a otros para que creyeran en sus teorías. Los seguidores de la ciencia "políticamente incorrecta" fueron castigados. Cambiar la cultura será difícil. Las personas necesitan saber que el gobierno no es la solución, sino parte del problema. Briggs cree que las personas no están destruyendo la naturaleza, sino que son una parte importante de ella.'
--------- 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.
'En un discurso de 2015, William Briggs habló sobre cómo las creencias de las personas pueden llegar a ser parte de quienes son. Dijo que hay una diferencia entre los científicos y las personas regulares. Si una persona regular aprende que la Tierra orbita el sol, usualmente lo creerá. Las personas regulares confían en los científicos, incluso sin entender la ciencia. Pero creer que la Tierra orbita el sol no impacta realmente en su vida cotidiana. Comparó eso con algunas personas que creen en los ovnis. Esto va en contra de lo que creen la mayoría de los expertos. La diferencia es que las personas quieren creer en extraterrestres. Creer en los ovnis se convierte en parte de su identidad. Cuando los expertos dicen que los ovnis no son reales, puede fortalecer sus creencias aún más. Los creyentes en ovnis pueden ser desagradables, pero generalmente no es dañino para nadie. Solo porque alguien quiere creer en algo (como que los aviones pueden volar o que una píldora cura enfermedades) no significa que sea ilógico o irracional. Las personas creen estas cosas porque las han visto funcionar. Es bueno si los científicos están de acuerdo, pero no esencial. En el cambio climático, las personas regulares a menudo están fuertemente en desacuerdo con los expertos reales. Los científicos del clima no están de acuerdo en tantos puntos, es asombroso que puedan decir algo en absoluto. Personas sin formación en ciencias climáticas atacan a los científicos que no están de acuerdo con ellos. La "solución" al cambio climático a menudo implica usar el poder del gobierno para detener el capitalismo descontrolado. Quieren limitar o prohibir cualquier actividad que impacte el medio ambiente. Los verdaderos creyentes quieren esta "solución". Abogar por ella es parte de su identidad, por lo que cualquier duda se siente como un ataque personal. Exigen que se castigue a los escépticos. Los políticos aceptan, creyendo que son la solución. Briggs tiene experiencia personal aquí. Después de publicar un artículo crítico de las opiniones de consenso sobre el cambio climático, fue amenazado por personas regulares e investigado por el Congreso. En la Unión Soviética, Lysenko intimidó a los científicos para que aceptaran sus teorías. Los defensores de la ciencia "políticamente incorrecta" fueron despedidos, arrestados o asesinados. Cambiar la cultura será difícil. Las personas necesitan estar convencidas de que el gobierno no es la solución, sino parte del problema. Briggs cree que los humanos no están destruyendo el medio ambiente, sino que son una parte importante de la naturaleza. 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.