The Force of Modifying Behavior

[DrEvil]

No, you're not capable of having a discussion about this without the cliche knee-jerk denier! denier!

I wrote:

What if I want to bring into the conversation how volcanoes impact the climate, is that allowed?

What I did not write was that what the magnitude of the volcanic activity is and if it's a minor or major player over long periods of time. Now if I wrote that sorta recently discovered volcanic activity discovered underneath a small area of Antarctica proves that humans are not responsible for the melting ice shelf in that area you have plenty of room to debate the fallacy of my statement. I merely suggested that ONE of the variables in the larger equation is nature, specifically volcanoes. In no way did I entertain the idea that humans are not responsible for a rise in global temperatures and rapid accumulation of green house gases. Nor did I suggest that solar flares, rotting organic matter, El Ninos etc.... outweigh the human impact.

What you did was so typical and trite that it's why sane people roll their eyes at the screamers who look for, and want to read/hear triggers. You were all too eager to be triggered. I used a generic natural variable and you took the bait. Call it trolling, but it was effective in demonstrating the extreme attitudes people have.

I was triggered because, as I said, people who bring up volcanoes or the sun or any number of other similar talking points are almost always doing it in bad faith. They're not asking about it out of genuine curiosity but because they want to spread doubt and troll people. They get off on pissing off people who care about the climate. It's about as funny as some asshole standing next to you on the street with your house on fire telling you "haha, look your house is on fire!"

Climate scientists have been telling us loudly and clearly for decades that we are the cause of the warming, so you would expect people to get the idea at some point. At this point, if you're waffling on about volcanoes you are either exceptionally ignorant, a troll or a denier.

What you don't seem to realize is that many people don't know scientific details of the what global warming is all about. You know why? The media has done a shit job of it and also shoddy reporting actually hurts more than it helps. If you're going to cavalierly label people as deniers maybe you should realize that your own behavior and reactions aren't helping. I would wager a very large chunk of the human population doesn't have a highly informed background on what natural variables impact temperatures and how the human impact does. The entire dynamics are extremely complex requiring sophisticated modeling and explanations. Also keep in mind some skeptics think (because of the media) that the goalposts keep moving with the gloom and doom milestones. I'm not saying some skeptics aren't deniers, for sure some probably are. You can be skeptical of certain data or faulty ideas if the goalpost thing is addressed poorly, which I think it is.

That's why we have experts. They study this shit for a living, and all of them are saying the same god damn thing: it's bad and getting worse.

You screeching about lynchings and assaulting people doesn't advance the cause. You only make yourself look like a violent crack pot.

And here's an excellent example of why it's so frustrating discussing with you. A few posts back you acknowledged that I had been joking (albeit in poor taste), but as soon as it fits your argument I'm suddenly back to being a bloodthirsty maniac. Some consistency would be nice.

I give little credence to paid shills, doesn't mean I don't listen to what they are saying. I give just as little credence to people running around screaming that doomsday is around the corner. Learning how to understand your "enemies" or opponents viewpoint is critical to helping them understand how they are wrong or misinformed and for you to educate them. But why bother with that when it's easier to just lynch or punch them.

You still don't get it. Doomsday is around the corner for us, and already here for millions more. I can't help it if you refuse to take in what the scientists are actually saying, but here's a quick summary: If we don't resort to drastic action right now we're all fucked.

It's not a problem of getting the facts out there, people are already shouting them from the rooftops, it's a problem of cognitive dissonance. You can't convince someone of something they don't want to believe. The problem is so overwhelming and terrifying that people would rather just pretend it will all magically be okay and resort to endless excuses and distractions while the problem gets worse and worse.

Everyone who knows what they're talking about is saying things are bad, so either you assume they're all lying, or you accept that they know better than you and act accordingly. Food shortages, droughts, drowning cities, mass migrations, dwindling water resources and wars isn't going to be something that happens over there, it's going to affect all of us.

Being civil and polite helps fuck all when the driver of your car is going full speed towards a cliff and screaming "there is no cliff!"

My point was proven, rational discussion is not possible with extremists who promote violence as a means to an end.

Again, you already accepted that I was joking, so which one is it? Was I joking or being serious, or does that vary depending on what kind of argument you want to make?

[minime]

So, dr. evil, what are you doing?

[minime]

minime, have patience. (we need you)

I don't see it.

Without making this about me, tell me what is needed, and if I have it, I'll give it freely.

[DrEvil]

So, dr. evil, what are you doing?

I rant about it on the internet, I recycle everything I can, I don't drive, I get most of my food from local, ecological producers, I vote green and I get all my electricity from hydroelectric plants. And it won't help one bit. Individual action is symbolic and mostly useless. What is needed is global and immediate action, but with all the deniers and all the money involved it won't happen until disaster is staring us in the face, and by then it might be too late.

[minime]

So, dr. evil, what are you doing?

I rant about it on the internet, I recycle everything I can, I don't drive, I get most of my food from local, ecological producers, I vote green and I get all my electricity from hydroelectric plants. And it won't help one bit. Individual action is symbolic and mostly useless. What is needed is global and immediate action, but with all the deniers and all the money involved it won't happen until disaster is staring us in the face, and by then it might be too late.

It helps one bit. One bit becomes two; two become four; four become eight. In search of the word.

All collective action is a collection of individual actions.

Individual action is only symbolic only through denial.

[DrEvil]

So, dr. evil, what are you doing?

I rant about it on the internet, I recycle everything I can, I don't drive, I get most of my food from local, ecological producers, I vote green and I get all my electricity from hydroelectric plants. And it won't help one bit. Individual action is symbolic and mostly useless. What is needed is global and immediate action, but with all the deniers and all the money involved it won't happen until disaster is staring us in the face, and by then it might be too late.

It helps one bit. One bit becomes two; two become four; four become eight. In search of the word.

All collective action is a collection of individual actions.

Individual action is only symbolic only through denial.

If the progression was exponential we would have fixed the problem by now. Unfortunately it's the other way around, the problem is exponential while we are still diddling about with linear solutions, putting band-aids on broken bones and arterial bleeding.

That said, I wouldn't be ranting so much if I thought it was entirely futile. If I can influence just one person that's a net good in my book. Only seven billion more to go.

[minime]

If the progression was exponential we would have fixed the problem by now. Unfortunately it's the other way around, the problem is exponential while we are still diddling about with linear solutions, putting band-aids on broken bones and arterial bleeding.

That said, I wouldn't be ranting so much if I thought it was entirely futile. If I can influence just one person that's a net good in my book. Only seven billion more to go.

Diddling about with linear solutions is a rhetorical phrase, the intent of which is to effect disempowerment.

If you make the progression exponential, then it will not be linear. If you can influence two people, you have done your part in an exponential progression.

If one person tries to convince another, he/she/it will often encounter seemingly insurmountable resistance.

If two agree with one will and one mind, and manifest it without effort, the resistance will immediately diminish on individuals of sufficiently similar sympathies.

Three is the magic number and will begin to initiate a sea change, affecting those of increasingly diminishing sympathies. The greater the number, the more abrupt the change.


Diddling about with linear solutions is a rhetorical device, the intent of which is to effect disempowerment.

Acting on an interpersonal level does not preclude political aspirations. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, how can any political solution occur unless it is built on personal interaction. How can you convince everyone to buy into your program to save the noosphere if you can't convince even two?

Do both.

[DrEvil]

If the progression was exponential we would have fixed the problem by now. Unfortunately it's the other way around, the problem is exponential while we are still diddling about with linear solutions, putting band-aids on broken bones and arterial bleeding.

That said, I wouldn't be ranting so much if I thought it was entirely futile. If I can influence just one person that's a net good in my book. Only seven billion more to go.

Diddling about with linear solutions is a rhetorical phrase, the intent of which is to effect disempowerment.

If you make the progression exponential, then it will not be linear. If you can influence two people, you have done your part in an exponential progression.

If one person tries to convince another, he/she/it will often encounter seemingly insurmountable resistance.

If two agree with one will and one mind, and manifest it without effort, the resistance will immediately diminish on individuals of sufficiently similar sympathies.

Three is the magic number and will begin to initiate a sea change, affecting those of increasingly diminishing sympathies. The greater the number, the more abrupt the change.


Diddling about with linear solutions is a rhetorical device, the intent of which is to effect disempowerment.

Acting on an interpersonal level does not preclude political aspirations. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, how can any political solution occur unless it is built on personal interaction. How can you convince everyone to buy into your program to save the noosphere if you can't convince even two?

Do both.

"Diddling about with linear solutions" is a rhetorical device, the intent of which is to underline the point that we're not doing enough.

Otherwise I agree to an extent, but I think you're too optimistic on the power of persuasion. There is a core of people who either don't want to be convinced, or who don't care because caring would affect their bottom line. There is research that shows that trying to convince deniers with logical arguments and data is counterproductive, it just reinforces their already held beliefs. It's like trying to convert evangelicals. Eventually they just shut down and refuse to listen because the cognitive dissonance becomes too great.

The best we can hope for is to make them outcasts and a laughing-stock to be ignored while the rest of us get on with it, but right now a lot of those people are still in positions of influence and doing their best to convince people the other way. It's slowly shifting away from them, but not nearly fast enough.

[Karmamatterz]

Dr. Evil, I will grant that you may have been joking. You, however, have been on this board a long time and know better.

"You may have been joking." Those are key words. I still think you meant it but are backpedaling.

They get off on pissing off people who care about the climate.

No, wake the hell up dude. It has nothing to do with pissing you or anybody off. It has everything to do with rational discussions. You even just posted publicly you want to convert, educate, change etc...people so that they will help slow the pace of global warming. If you're actually serious about that then you really have to change your approach. I'm bringing this up in good faith with the intention of trying to help you.

Cut out the suggestions about violence. ALL of them. No more projected fantasies about lynching, punching or any other harm to humans. Cut back dramatically on your drama. You come off as a drama queen with all this gloom and doom hysterics. It's like as if there is an entire cottage industry of climate change porn and people get off on the latest extreme post about the end times being near. None of that furthers the cause. None of it.

You can be super passionate about this and be more effective with calm, rational and thoughtful discussions. Before you label anyone hear them out and let them share what they have to share. Doesn't matter what the discussion is, if you drown out their voice they will feel marginalized. Believe me, much of the polarization going on in the U.S. right now is due to people feeling marginalized, on ALL parts of the spectrum. Think about how you can be more effective by being more thoughtful and less prone to being triggered by someone else. You can't control anybody else, but you can control your own reactions.

If you do to others what you did with me or Sounder and suggest they are a denier because they bring up something to test you, or truly disagree with you then just forget it. Go buy a punching bag and beat the shit out of it because if you don't change your approach you might as well turn your aggression somewhere else.

[Karmamatterz]

The best we can hope for is to make them outcasts and a laughing-stock to be ignored while the rest of us get on with it, but right now a lot of those people are still in positions of influence and doing their best to convince people the other way. It's slowly shifting away from them, but not nearly fast enough.

Oh okay. Well just ignore my previous post where I was suggesting you be a rational human being that respects others. You obviously have some serious anger shit going as it comes out in your writing. Ridicule will not help. Lynchings or punchings will not help. You're willfully dragging yourself down to the same level as how the alt-right behaves.

[minime]

There is a core of people who either don't want to be convinced, or who don't care because caring would affect their bottom line.

I won't disagree with anything that Karmamatterz had to say.

I will add this: In response to my post about a possible way to effect change by approaching first those most likely to be sympathetic to the program, you immediately reframed it in such a way to put you into immediate conflict with the most strident 'deniers'--as if your purpose really is really, simply, to put you into insoluble conflict.

Resolving 'global warming' is part of the endgame. It can't be won without overwhelming numbers. 'Deniers' won't be persuaded without overwhelming numbers, if at all.

[DrEvil]

The best we can hope for is to make them outcasts and a laughing-stock to be ignored while the rest of us get on with it, but right now a lot of those people are still in positions of influence and doing their best to convince people the other way. It's slowly shifting away from them, but not nearly fast enough.

Oh okay. Well just ignore my previous post where I was suggesting you be a rational human being that respects others. You obviously have some serious anger shit going as it comes out in your writing. Ridicule will not help. Lynchings or punchings will not help. You're willfully dragging yourself down to the same level as how the alt-right behaves.

Ffs. My point was that the most hardcore deniers and the paid shills are not going to change their mind no matter what, people have been trying for decades, so the only way to remove their influence is to get to a point where no one takes them seriously anymore. They don't deserve any respect and there's no point in arguing with them.

Most of the people open to having their mind changed have done so already because the evidence is overwhelming.

[minime]

Most of the people open to having their mind changed have done so already because the evidence is overwhelming.

Quite simply, you are wrong. Most people are too busy or too lazy to pay any attention to it at all--even in these end days. They're waiting for you. Whether you know it or not.

You frame it the way you do to liberate yourself from meaningful action. You would rather rant and rail, as you say.

[DrEvil]

Most of the people open to having their mind changed have done so already because the evidence is overwhelming.

Quite simply, you are wrong. Most people are too busy or too lazy to pay any attention to it at all--even in these end days. They're waiting for you. Whether you know it or not.

You frame it the way you do to liberate yourself from meaningful action. You would rather rant and rail, as you say.

I rant and rail because my health won't allow me any other options.

[Elvis]

"no civilization has in it any element which in the last analysis is not the contribution of an individual."

— Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture