https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgM1yhwj1mg
By William Briggs
Summary
'Neste discurso proferido na Décima Conferência Internacional sobre Mudanças Climáticas em 2015, William Briggs discute como as crenças das pessoas se tornam parte de sua identidade. Ele começa discutindo as diferenças entre cientistas e civis. Se um civil é ensinado que a terra gira em torno do sol, geralmente acredita nisso. Os civis confiam na palavra de um cientista, mesmo que não entendam a mecânica orbital. No entanto, essa crença é relativamente pouco importante para suas vidas diárias. Ele contrasta isso com uma crença que muitos civis têm em UFOs. A maioria dos especialistas discorda. A diferença entre o movimento planetário e os UFOs é que isso é algo que eles querem acreditar. Faz parte de sua identidade acreditar em UFOs. Quando os especialistas argumentam contra os UFOs, isso pode realmente fortalecer sua crença. Mas, além de entediar seus convidados para o jantar, ainda é uma crença relativamente inofensiva. Só porque alguém tem um desejo de acreditar em algo (que os aviões voam ou que uma pílula cura uma doença) não é logicamente ou psicologicamente errado. As pessoas acreditam nessas coisas porque as viram funcionar. Que os cientistas concordem é reconfortante, mas não essencial. Quando se trata de mudanças climáticas, civis geralmente discordam fortemente dos verdadeiros especialistas. E há uma variedade tão grande de opiniões entre os especialistas que é incrível que algo útil possa ser dito sobre as mudanças climáticas. Pessoas sem compreensão da ciência do clima atacam cientistas que discordam de suas visões. “A solução” para as mudanças climáticas geralmente envolve o uso do poder governamental para eliminar o "capitalismo irrestrito". Quaisquer atividades que impactem o meio ambiente devem ser regulamentadas ou proibidas. Os verdadeiros crentes desejam "a solução". Defender isso é parte de sua identidade, então qualquer ceticismo da solução é um ataque pessoal contra eles. Eles exigem que céticos da “solução” sejam demitidos, processados ou até mortos. Se uma nova pesquisa pode perturbar sua crença, então a nova pesquisa deve ser interrompida. Os políticos seguem essa linha, porque acreditam ser a solução. Briggs tem experiência pessoal nesta área. Após publicar um artigo crítico sobre o consenso climático, ele foi ameaçado por civis e investigado por membros da Câmara e do Senado. Na União Soviética, Lysenko intimidava outros cientistas para que aceitassem suas teorias. Proponentes da ciência "politicamente incorreta" (o termo real que eles usavam) foram demitidos, presos e até mortos. Mudar a cultura será difícil. As pessoas precisam ser convencidas de que o governo não é a solução, mas parte do problema. Briggs acredita que as pessoas não são uma praga contra o meio ambiente, mas uma faceta vital da natureza.'
'Em um discurso de 2015, William Briggs falou sobre como as crenças das pessoas podem se tornar parte de quem elas são. Ele disse que há uma diferença entre cientistas e pessoas comuns. Se um cientista diz a uma pessoa comum que a Terra gira em torno do sol, geralmente ela acreditará. Pessoas comuns confiam em cientistas, mesmo que não entendam a ciência. Mas acreditar ou não que a terra gira em torno do sol não muda a vida cotidiana de uma pessoa. Ele comparou isso a algumas pessoas que acreditam em OVNIs. Isso discorda do que a maioria dos especialistas pensa. A diferença é que algumas pessoas querem acreditar em alienígenas. Acreditar em OVNIs torna-se parte de quem elas são. Quando os especialistas dizem que os OVNIs não são reais, isso pode fortalecer ainda mais a crença delas. Elas podem ser irritantes, mas essas crenças não são muito prejudiciais. Só porque alguém quer acreditar em algo não significa que seja ilógico ou errado. As pessoas acreditam nas coisas que viram. É confortável se os cientistas concordam, mas não é essencial. Sobre as mudanças climáticas, as pessoas comuns costumam discordar fortemente dos especialistas. Os especialistas discordam em muitas coisas sobre as mudanças climáticas, por isso é incrível que eles possam dizer algo claro sobre isso. Pessoas comuns sem treinamento em ciência do clima atacam cientistas reais que discordam delas. A "solução" para as mudanças climáticas geralmente envolve o uso do poder governamental para parar o capitalismo. Eles querem limitar ou parar qualquer atividade que impacte o meio ambiente. Os verdadeiros crentes querem acreditar nesta solução. Faz parte de quem eles são, então se sentem atacados quando as pessoas duvidam deles. Os políticos vão junto, acreditando que são a solução. Briggs tem experiência aqui. Depois de publicar um artigo discordando das ideias populares sobre o clima, ele foi ameaçado e investigado pelo Congresso. Na União Soviética, um poderoso cientista chamado Lysenko intimidou os outros a acreditar em suas teorias. Os apoiadores da ciência "politicamente incorreta" foram punidos. Mudar a cultura será difícil. As pessoas precisam saber que o governo não é a solução, mas parte do problema. Briggs acredita que as pessoas não estão destruindo a natureza, mas são uma parte importante dela.'
--------- 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.
'Em um discurso de 2015, William Briggs falou sobre como as crenças das pessoas podem se tornar parte de quem elas são. Ele disse que há uma diferença entre cientistas e pessoas comuns. Se uma pessoa comum aprende que a Terra orbita o sol, normalmente ela acredita. Pessoas comuns confiam nos cientistas, mesmo sem entender a ciência. Mas acreditar que a Terra orbita o sol não impacta realmente sua vida diária. Ele comparou isso com algumas pessoas acreditando em OVNIs. Isso vai contra o que a maioria dos especialistas acredita. A diferença é que as pessoas querem acreditar em alienígenas. Acreditar em OVNIs se torna parte de sua identidade. Quando os especialistas dizem que os OVNIs não são reais, isso pode fortalecer suas crenças ainda mais. Crentes em OVNIs podem ser obnóxios, mas geralmente não são prejudiciais para ninguém. Só porque alguém quer acreditar em algo (como aviões podem voar ou uma pílula cura a doença) não significa que é ilógico ou irracional. As pessoas acreditam nessas coisas porque as viram funcionar. É bom se os cientistas concordam, mas não é essencial. Sobre a mudança climática, as pessoas comuns geralmente discordam fortemente dos verdadeiros especialistas. Os cientistas climáticos discordam de tantos pontos que é surpreendente que eles possam dizer alguma coisa. Pessoas sem treinamento em ciência do clima atacam cientistas que discordam delas. A "solução" para a mudança climática geralmente envolve o uso do poder do governo para parar o capitalismo descontrolado. Eles querem limitar ou proibir qualquer atividade que impacte o meio ambiente. Os verdadeiros crentes querem essa "solução". Defendê-la faz parte de sua identidade, então qualquer dúvida parece um ataque pessoal. Eles exigem que os céticos sejam punidos. Políticos concordam, acreditando que são a solução. Briggs tem experiência pessoal aqui. Depois de publicar um artigo crítico das visões de consenso sobre mudança climática, ele foi ameaçado por pessoas comuns e investigado pelo Congresso. Na União Soviética, Lysenko intimidou os cientistas a aceitar suas teorias. Os apoiadores da ciência "politicamente incorreta" foram demitidos, presos ou mortos. Mudar a cultura será difícil. As pessoas precisam ser convencidas de que o governo não é a solução, mas parte do problema. Briggs acredita que os humanos não estão destruindo o meio ambiente, mas são uma parte importante da natureza. Ensino em casa:'
--------- 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.