Still want an EV?

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Tejas1836

a study

Are we upholding the standards of critical thinking by disqualifying studies with conspiracy theories that best fit our confirmation bias?

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by jmg

It's interesting how the tail wags the dog in the case of the EV.

Is it the attachment to the ICE that tends to result in the acceptance of the idea that climate change was a lie, or was it the initial skepticism of climate change that turned these people off to the EV?

Simply some believe that 'climate change' (who made that up) is the deciding factor and don't look at the bigger picture, eg.future power supply cost, pollution figures are over guessed grossly by 'green scientists', earth ravaging for lithium and slave labour in third world countries are some of the issues.

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by jmg

Maybe burning fossil fuels would be good for the plants if CO2 were the only byproduct.

Well the war against co2 is what we are discussing by bev transition the enforcement being to keep global temps etc below an arbitrary mark.

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Simply some believe that 'climate change' (who made that up) is the deciding factor and don't look at the bigger picture, eg.future power supply cost, pollution figures are over guessed grossly by 'green scientists', earth ravaging for lithium and slave labour in third world countries are some of the issues.

climate change...climate crisis....climate emergency....climate catastrophe...the poor teens are scared out of their wits with the hysteria and some aren't attending school too I hear.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

climate change...climate crisis....climate emergency....climate catastrophe...the poor teens are scared out of their wits with the hysteria and some aren't attending school too I hear.

Basically teens need to wise up, they can join the scouts like I did for some 'roughage' and the girls to the girl guides, the present education system isn't helping them a lot also.
It's their future and they can influence the gubment in what they really want.

[kyriian]

Originally Posted by jmg

Are we upholding the standards of critical thinking by disqualifying studies with conspiracy theories that best fit our confirmation bias?

Are we upholding the standards of critical thinking by disqualifying studies with other studies that counter studies that best fit our confirmation bias?

Are we upholding the standards of critical thinking by disqualifying future studies that will counter existing or past studies that best fit our confirmation bias?

Very few if any studies are unbiased, and scientific studies change with technological, data, and statistical changes, most studies start with its own confirmation bias, its studies by other humans afterall.

What exactly is increasing consumption (in this case, EV)doing to help climate change?

[jmg]

Originally Posted by kyriian

Are we upholding the standards of critical thinking by disqualifying future studies that will counter existing or past studies that best fit our confirmation bias?

My initial post was an earnest attempt to understand the thought process of those who are anti-EV and those climate change skeptics and why they are so closely related. Is there a causational or correlational relationship?


Here's how the conversation went:

Originally Posted by M5Rick

More climate change lies exposed.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=20...9QQrszm0E,st:0

Originally Posted by jmg

It's interesting how the tail wags the dog in the case of the EV.

Is it the attachment to the ICE that tends to result in the acceptance of the idea that climate change was a lie, or was it the initial skepticism of climate change that turned these people off to the EV?

A small part of me was expecting someone to suggest that their stance on the EV was formed from the idea that they were skeptical of the idea of climate change because of a particular study, or personal experience. This would indication a causational relationship in a clear direction.

Instead, here was the answer I recieved:

Originally Posted by Tejas1836

I think that people don't like things mandated by our .gov and meddling in our daily lives thinking (I use that term loosely) that they know what's best for us, one size fits all.

So, we can reasonably deduce that the decision to be anti-EV was primarily that they do not want to be told what to do by the government. Not a study, not a personal experience regarding climate change itself, instead they simply didn't like being told what to do.

So I then attempted to ascertain the value of studies aka "mainstream science" in this formation of beliefs:

Originally Posted by jmg

If a government creates policy based on a study, and we don't like that these polices meddle in our daily lives, then the logical thing to do is to reject the validity of the study?

Originally Posted by Tejas1836

a study "LOL WUT"

I got my answer, and please correct me if I am wrong, but the value of mainstream science is low in the anti-EV, climate change skeptic crowd.

Your reply supports this phenomena as well:

Originally Posted by kyriian

Very few if any studies are unbiased

Now we are getting somewhere!


Flat earthers also reject overwhelming "mainstream" scientific evidence that doesn't align with their beliefs. They use alternative explanations, like the idea that time zones are a product of the sun acting as a spotlight moving in a circle above the earth.


If only very few studies are unbiased, what alternative explanations are you, yourself, utilizing to help form your current belief?

[jmg]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

climate change...climate crisis....climate emergency....climate catastrophe...the poor teens are scared out of their wits with the hysteria

Are the validity of ideas judged simply by how scary they are?

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

and some aren't attending school too I hear.

Interesting.

Source?

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by jmg

Interesting.

Source?

Sorry

[jmg]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Sorry

She’s more the exception than the rule. Most of the kids at my kids school don’t even care about climate change. It’s mentioned in science class but it’s much more pragmatic than one might think and not so dogmatic. Ie the language is more like “some studies suggest” and not “the end is neigh”.

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by jmg

She’s more the exception than the rule. Most of the kids at my kids school don’t even care about climate change. It’s mentioned in science class but it’s much more pragmatic than one might think and not so dogmatic. Ie the language is more like “some studies suggest” and not “the end is neigh”.

Pretty significant exception though. Around here the schools are the opposite. Tbh it's dependent on the teachers and a proportion of the young ones in my daughters primary school are climate activists. There's nothing against them preaching their belief in school.

[Tejas1836]

...

[jmg]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Pretty significant exception though. Around here the schools are the opposite. Tbh it's dependent on the teachers and a proportion of the young ones in my daughters primary school are climate activists. There's nothing against them preaching their belief in school.

She is one child in billions, so while she gets a lot of notoriety, she's statistically insignificant, even if culturally significant, for better or worse.

Suggesting that a meaningful amount of teens are ditching school seems like the same fear mongering tactic climate crisis activists allegedly use.

It's important to recognize fear mongering as an obstacle to productive dialog, regardless of which side is using it.

Regardless, for argument's sake lets say there are teens missing school taking up this cause. Should the legitimacy of a cause be determined by who takes on that cause and how it might negatively affect them? If that was a legitimate determining factor, should we not hold the Civil Rights movement to the same standards and hold it up to the same scrutiny?

The Civil Rights movement, after all, was also a cause taken upon by a large group of young adults at the time. Of those who argued against the Civil Rights movement because of how it made teens miss school, what side of history did they think they would end up being on?

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by jmg

She is one child in billions, so while she gets a lot of notoriety, she's statistically insignificant, even if culturally significant, for better or worse.

Suggesting that a meaningful amount of teens are ditching school seems like the same fear mongering tactic climate crisis activists allegedly use.

It's important to recognize fear mongering as an obstacle to productive dialog, regardless of which side is using it.

Regardless, for argument's sake lets say there are teens missing school taking up this cause. Should the legitimacy of a cause be determined by who takes on that cause and how it might negatively affect them? If that was a legitimate determining factor, should we not hold the Civil Rights movement to the same standards and hold it up to the same scrutiny?

The Civil Rights movement, after all, was also a cause taken upon by a large group of young adults at the time. Of those who argued against the Civil Rights movement because of how it made teens miss school, what side of history did they think they would end up being on?

It was a sarcastic joke..I had greta in mind all along!.
Of course teens aren't missing school in hordes but a good proportion of them post greta probably think we are imminently doomed.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by jmg

My initial post was an earnest attempt to understand the thought process of those who are anti-EV and those climate change skeptics and why they are so closely related. Is there a causational or correlational relationship?


Here's how the conversation went:






A small part of me was expecting someone to suggest that their stance on the EV was formed from the idea that they were skeptical of the idea of climate change because of a particular study, or personal experience. This would indication a causational relationship in a clear direction.

Instead, here was the answer I recieved:





So, we can reasonably deduce that the decision to be anti-EV was primarily that they do not want to be told what to do by the government. Not a study, not a personal experience regarding climate change itself, instead they simply didn't like being told what to do.

So I then attempted to ascertain the value of studies aka "mainstream science" in this formation of beliefs:







I got my answer, and please correct me if I am wrong, but the value of mainstream science is low in the anti-EV, climate change skeptic crowd.

Your reply supports this phenomena as well:





Now we are getting somewhere!


Flat earthers also reject overwhelming "mainstream" scientific evidence that doesn't align with their beliefs. They use alternative explanations, like the idea that time zones are a product of the sun acting as a spotlight moving in a circle above the earth.


If only very few studies are unbiased, what alternative explanations are you, yourself, utilizing to help form your current belief?

I understand where you're coming from but your intelligent questions don't tally with the way 'climate change' and 'net zero' is being forced on everyone suddenly by an undemocratic system.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Tejas1836

...

To be perfectly honest, it seems that constructive discourse has given way to an echo chamber in this thread some time ago. Echo chambers parrot rhetoric they know people will agree with, narrowing their perspective, and forgetting how to form arguments that will resonate outside of those that already agree with them.


Presenting diverse perspectives in this echo chamber benefits everyone.

Think of it as practice. The weak rhetoric lives rent free when not challenged. Sparring with someone who disagrees with you makes you sharper.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

I understand where you're coming from but your intelligent questions don't tally with the way 'climate change' and 'net zero' is being forced on everyone suddenly by an undemocratic system.

If the ultimate goal was to always come to the same conclusion, then minimizing the other side as unintelligent and dismissing discourse as futile is an effective strategy.

Whether or not it is beneficial or constructive to anyone, is another question.

[Tejas1836]

jmg
What is your thesis?

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Tejas1836

jmg
What is your thesis?

I'm more interested in understanding and providing different perspectives on the formation of ideas than trying to convince others to accept my actual beliefs.

[Tejas1836]

Originally Posted by jmg

I'm more interested in understanding and providing different perspectives on the formation of ideas than trying to convince others to accept my actual beliefs.

OK, but what is your thesis? In order to understand, one must have a thesis, otherwise it is just trolling.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

It was a sarcastic joke..I had greta in mind all along!.
Of course teens aren't missing school in hordes but a good proportion of them post greta probably think we are imminently doomed.

The irony is that if that doom were real, but our efforts to avert from it are successful, then those who were against those efforts will use the absence of that doom as an argument that there wasn't any doom to begin with.

Case in point, the Civil Rights Movement was successful from certain perspectives, but unsuccessful from other's perspectives, most notably from those who feel like their quality of life or position has diminished since then regardless of the moral implications of such a conclusion. The question remains, was it a valid movement even though there were negative consequences, ie teens missing school, fear, civil unrest, violence etc.?

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by jmg

The irony is that if that doom were real, but our efforts to avert from it are successful, then those who were against those efforts will use the absence of that doom as an argument that there wasn't any doom to begin with.

Case in point, the Civil Rights Movement was successful from certain perspectives, but unsuccessful from other's perspectives, most notably from those who feel like their quality of life or position has diminished since then regardless of the moral implications of such a conclusion. The question remains, was it a valid movement even though there were negative consequences, ie teens missing school, fear, civil unrest, violence etc.?

I'd say like aspirin or statin never know if they worked when you don't get a atroke or a heart attack. The civil rights movement probably isn't a great allegory here.