According to Yale Climate Connections a new study shows one of the first estimates of sea level rise made by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change closely matches what actually happened over the past 30 years.

Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report.

According to Dr. Torbjörn Törnqvist "it shows that even 30 years ago, scientists understood the fundamentals of climate change".

Törnqvist: “I find it hard to think of any other form of evidence that is more compelling to demonstrate that this is happening, it has been happening for a long time, and we know why, and we understand it, and we can make credible projections.”

Dr. Törnqvist's research interests include Quaternary geology, Sea-level change, Coastal sustainability, Fluvial and deltaic sedimentology, Sequence stratigraphy, Applied geochronology and Paleoclimatology.

It's easy for denialists to reject the predictions of scientific models but it takes a special kind of mental contortion to ignore scientific evidence.

Its the same climate three-card trick and the same climate fools fall for it each time.

30 years ago takes us back to 1995 and the Second IPCC report (SAR). And what did SAR predict for sea levels through to 2025. Nothing. But don't let that get in the way of the three-card trick.

What they did predict was that sea levels would rise somewhere between 15cm and 95cm by 2100. Its like saying my grandson will grow to be somewhere between really tiny and a giant and then claiming victory when he turns out to be normal height.

So we have this enormous range from which the three-card trickster then picks the scenario that most matches reality and claims that as the real prediction. And even then they have to fiddle the numbers, which is why WTF didn't mention the sources because, even if he understood the fiddle, it would expose the trick.

The hilarity is that the climate true-believers will fall for the three-card trick every time and not even know it.

The truth is that sea level rise predictions has been one of the worst failures for the IPCC, and that's saying something!

If you make enough predictions then one of them is bound to come true.

I remember when they said that the sea will rise by 300 metres.
That was scary indeed.

But then they revised it down to 61 metres.
Great opportunity, so my brother built a nice house 63 metres above sea level, sloping from there down his property.
...and he still waits to have his private beach...

WTF?

Dear oh dear where do I start?

Yuyutsu you say "I remember when they said that the sea will rise by 300 metres. That was scary indeed".
Sadly, I think that was the intention of bad actors - to scare you. Rest assured the IPCC made no such statement.

mhaze, wrong again.

Yes the IPCC did make predictions up to 2100 in its 1995/1996 report but when you say " And what did SAR predict for sea levels through to 2025. Nothing". You are wrong.

Why? because that detail was provided in graphical form not a written statement and this is what Törnqvist did his analysis on.

If fact the recorded 9cm change is not from the "low" CO2 range, not from the "medium" CO2 range but from the "high" CO2 predicted range.

So the 8cm prediction was associated with the highest predicted CO2 concentration in ppmv.

So once again mhaze you are wrong. The predictions were in graphical form.

What is the analysis: Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report.

WTF asserts (ie no actual data)...."If fact the recorded 9cm change is not from the "low" CO2 range, not from the "medium" CO2 range but from the "high" CO2 predicted range."

That's plain wrong. I don't know if WTF just doesn't understand this or just makes it up as he goes but here's what the IPCC said in SAR...

"for Scenario IS92a, sea level is projected to be about 50 cm higher than today by the year 2100, with a range of uncertainty of 20-86 cm;

• for the range of emission scenarios IS92a-f using "best-estimate" model parameters, sea level is projected to be 38-55 cm higher than today by the year 2100;

• the extreme range of projections, taking into account both emission scenarios and model uncertainties, is 13-94 cm;"

So all sorts of estimates with al sorts of scenarios with all sorts of wide ranges. And then, as I said, the trick used to fool the easily fooled is to pick one of those that sorta/kinda matches the actual outcome and then claim that was the only prediction. And as usual WTF fell for it.

The other hilarious part here is that WTF thinks you can eyeball a graph where the only numbers are for 2100 and discern within 1cm what it says about 2025. His source made that assertion and WTF has just swallowed it without thought.

Here's SAR ..... http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf

(go to page 377 for the chapter on sea levels).

If, (a big if, I know) you read it you'll see so many different guesses about sea levels into the future that its child's play to pick out one and assert that its the rooly-trooly prediction. The climate tricksters have been doing this for decades now. I'm surprised WTF hasn't picked up on yet. Still, as George told Jerry...."its not a lie if you believe it".

It's sad when someone is so obsessed with one subject, particularly when most of it is a scam.

In the meantime, the "experts" in AEMO have gazed into their crystal ball and come up with the guess that coal will be needed until until 2049 to stabilise the grid.

Not the popular 2050. 2049.

I get a laugh when these people use precise dates - when they don't really have a clue - to spruik their bullsh.t.

WTF?

Still wrong mhaze,

It doesn't matter how much you drone on about the 2100 predictions (although there are obvious implications that follow on from there) Törnqvist's analysis is for the predictions up to 2025.

He is commenting on how the current (2025) data matches predictions made 30 years ago. He cannot do that for 2100 because... well you know...der... 2100 has not happened yet.

mhaze states: "The other hilarious part here is that WTF thinks you can eyeball a graph where the only numbers are for 2100."

This is the most bizarre of mhaze's mental contortions I have seen. There is this concept called interpreting information from a graph -it's not just about the end point.

You need to realise that the graphs contain predictions for every year from 1995 onwards. That's one of the reasons why information is graphed.

It's obvious to Törnqvist and the four other scientists he did the analysis with and it's obvious to me that there is a predicted sea level rise of 8 cm for 2025.

mhaze if you are going to present information present that information with with fidelity.

You are wrong again mhaze.

Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report.

So WTF, you're going to just pretend to NOT see that there were any number of sea level rises predicted for 2100 in SAR ranging from a 15cm rise through to a 95cm rise. You're just going to pretend that none of them exist, even though I directly quoted from SAR about those rises.

You're just going to pretend that the only prediction that exists is the one that tells you what you want to hear. Mind you, I'm not surprised that you are playing pretend with uncooperative data, since that's been the go-to approach for most of the we're-all-gunna-die community for decades. I'm just surprised that you're doing it so blatantly.

So again, if you read the SAR chapter 7 report (and as predicted you obviously haven't) then you'd see these multitude of predictions based on all sorts of what the IPCC have come to quaintly call scenarios.

And almost all of those predictions put the lie to what you and your sources are saying. Just one of these multitude of predictions gives the answer you want and that becomes the only one that you pretend exists.

And this is called science. Go figure.

If playing pretend with the predictions wasn't enough, then you play pretend with the actual data. Again, there are quite a few ways to measure sea level rise. You take one of those that best matches the pretend data you got from SAR, and declare victory.

You say sea levels rose 9 cm from 1995 to 2025. But the NASA Sea Level Change Portal says it was 10.4cm through to 2024. The Copernicus Climate Change Service (EU) says it was 10.8cm. NOAA (which takes Continental Rebound in to account) says it was 10-11cm. Indeed I couldn't find any reputable data set that said it was 9cm. Just another made up assertion?

IF I were you WTF, I'd stop digging.

WTF?

Once again mhaze, this study is about data collected to 2025 and how well they match the 1995 predictions.

Once again 2100 has not happened yet so there is no data from 1995 - 2100.

As you seem to struggle with nuanced scientific evaluation I'll provide you with what Törnqvist calls a "Plain Language Summary".

The ultimate test of climate projections occurs by means of subsequent observations. Three decades of satellite-based measurements of global sea-level change now enable such a comparison and show that early IPCC climate projections were remarkably accurate. Predictions of glacier mass loss and thermal expansion of seawater were comparatively successful, but the ice-sheet contributions were underestimated. Nevertheless, these findings provide confidence in model-based climate projections".

Any number of distractions, deflections and denials will not change the data and its analysis.

Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report.

"Once again 2100 has not happened yet so there is no data from 1995 - 2100."

Playing dumb isn't a good look WTF.

The data you rely on went through to 2100. Please have a try at reading the SAR Chapter 7 even if most of it goes over your head.

You are claiming to be able to discern 2025 data from the 2100 graph and that's sorta/kinda correct. But only marginally so and to claim as you do that you can read with precision what the 2025 data was from the graph of 2100 data is bonkers.

Even so I was prepared to go along with that. But what you fail to acknowledge (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in thinking this isn't too hard for you)...what you fail to acknowledge is that there are lots of graphs and data in the SAR report which show all sorts of data through to 2100 and therefore, using you own claims, lots of data about what 2025 would look like. Only one of those many options suits your claims and that's the one you want to pretend is the only one. But it isn't and pretending otherwise as you do is either dishonest or just too complex for you. Which is it?

The same with the actual 2025 (really 2024) sea level readings. None that I can find and none that you have provided actually show what you claim to be the actual rise. Yet you persist in just reiterating what have now been comprehensively debunked assertions. Sad.

So what do we end up with:

1. A claim that SAR predicted an 8cm rise when in fact only one of the dozen or so predictions in SAR comes close to that. Yet you want to pretend otherwise.

2. A claim that actual sea levels rose 9cm when none of the major agencies and data sets show such a number. Yet you want to pretend otherwise.

And you claim to understand the science. Oh dear!

WTF?

mhaze said "The data you rely on went through to 2100".

No the prediction when through to 2100, there is no data for 2100 because 2100 has not happened yet. Neither has 2026, 2027, 2028........ so no data for those years - predictions yes but no data.

The data goes through to 2025 and hence Törnqvist's analysis.

mhaze, you made this statement: "And what did SAR predict for sea levels through to 2025. Nothing".

You later provided a source to add some authoritative weight to that statement only to find that your source predicted an 8cm change and proved your statement to be false.

The claims I'm making here are that Törnqvist's analysis supports the predictions made back in 1995.... oh, and the fact that I can read a figure from a graph myself.

Törnqvist's analysis remains the most recent analysis of the data:

Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report

"so no data for those years - predictions yes but no data."

And the predictions were based on data. Just playing semantic games is rather childish.

I'm doing you the courtesy of assuming that all this isn't too hard for you and you are just playing dumb rather than admit you fell for a rubbish report. Not a good look but we see it a lot with those who fall for the latest scare without understanding the facts or lack thereof behind it.

Again, there is no valid data to support the claim about a 9cm rise in sea levels. And the data that you eyeballed to make the 8cm prediction claim is based on one AND ONLY ONE graph-line out of the dozen or so in the SAR Chapter 7 report.

So cherry-pick one claim. Make up another. And claim victory. Funny and sad at the same time.

And he still thinks he understands 'science'.

WTF?

mhaze states: "And the predictions were based on data." Well of course they were - known data at that time and the models available at that time.

The actual future data is unknown - you do get that don't you mhaze?

That's why it called a prediction.

We do not know the actual data until after it was been collected.

And now that data has been collected the scientific analysis is that:

Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report.

mhaze you are wrong when you said ""And what did SAR predict for sea levels through to 2025. Nothing". Your own source contradicted you.

mhaze you are wrong when you said "you eyeballed to make the 8cm prediction claim is based on one AND ONLY ONE graph-line."

mhaze you are wrong when you said " A claim that actual sea levels rose 9cm when none of the major agencies and data sets show such a number. Yet you want to pretend otherwise."

Hey, but don't take my word for it.

Dr. Torbjörn Törnqvis and his team analysed the known data and compared it to the IPCC predictions and came to this conclusion:
"Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report."

I think those who doubt sea level rise should buy a home as close to the seashore as possible.
In a few years, they might find the sea lapping at their front gate.
That should make them think.
If they can?

"Hey, but don't take my word for it. Dr. Torbjörn Törnqvis and his team analysed......"

Oh dear. So your entire argument here is that someone else told it it was true and you've decided to believe them without checking.

Well I checked and found that their claims about how much sea levels have risen isn't supported by any major dataset. But you go on outsourcing your checking if that's how you work.

And I checked and found that their claims about what was predicted by SAR was a monumental cherry-pick by carefully selecting one data point out of the dozens available. But you go on outsourcing your checking if that's how you work.

Just asserting I'm wrong because someone else told you fables isn't a good look.

What I find most astonishing here is that you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that all the world's major datasets show sea level rises different to what your gurus have told you to believe.

But I see this so much among the climate true believers. A blind faith in their gurus which obviates the need to actually see if they are being truthful or 'scientific'.

I'll bear that in mind if you get around to sticking your head above the parapet again. But in the meantime.... I'm done.

"I think those who doubt sea level rise should buy a home as close to the seashore as possible."

Well no one here is doubting sea level rise.

But just on buying a sea-front house, perhaps you should check what those who claim to fully believe the sea level predictions have done.

Bill Gates famously bought a house in Seattle that is true water front, even though he was, at the time, telling anyone who'd listen that the seas were going to rise by a metre. (Although to be fair, Gates has now seen the light and is no longer a climate fool.)

Then there's Al Gore who made a reported $300 million by telling the world that we were all gunna die if we didn't mend our evil ways. He currently owns 3 waterfront properties in various parts of the US. Somehow he doesn't think the rising sea levels are going to affect him!!

and then there is the lightbringer (aka Obama) who made a career based on climate scares. What did he do upon retirement having spent a decade telling us to mend out evil ways. He bought, and still owns, an absolute water-front property in Martha's Vineyard.

As has been said before, I'll believe the doom-mongers when they start living their lives the way they tell us we have to live ours

Nine cm sea level rise they claim. Again, I want to draw attention to billions upon billions of tonnes of artificial water displacement by shipping & land reclamation which simply can not have no impact on sea level !

Might not the point used as their reference point rise a few
cms or fall a few cm ?
I think the tidal marks in Sydney have not changed much.

Has it actually ever been possible to measure millimetres of fluctuation in sea level ?
Or, is it simply a case of some dabbling in science to get a mention in some journal ?
I have yet to see the sea surface so calm that a millimetre could be discerned.

My, my, my. When the cat’s away…

We have Yuyutsu citing predictions that were never made (not very enlightened), and mhaze insisting that the IPCC "didn’t predict anything for 2025," even though his own source contradicts him.

SAR’s sea-level projections were presented as time-series curves from 1995 to 2100. A projection to 2100 necessarily includes projections for every year in between, including 2025. This is why Törnqvist’s team were able to extract the ~8 cm value from the same figures mhaze linked. It’s not "three-card trickery." It’s how every multi-decadal climate projection is interpreted.

The "huge range" mhaze keeps waving around (15-95 cm) does not represent random guesses. These are conditional scenarios based on different emissions pathways. Once we know which pathway the world actually followed - namely, the high-emissions IS92 range - the correct comparison is with that curve. You don’t validate a model by comparing it to scenarios that never occurred.

Then there’s the attempt to dismiss the observed rise because NASA reports ~10-11 cm rather than the rounded "about nine centimetres." But those numbers aren’t contradictory. NASA, NOAA, Copernicus and CU all show roughly the same ~10 cm rise since the mid-1990s. Törnqvist uses rounded figures in public communication, not because the underlying data is imprecise, but because decimal pedantry isn’t required to grasp the result:

1995 projection: ~8 cm.
Observed: ~9-11 cm.
A 30-year-old model got it right.

Claiming the IPCC "didn’t predict 2025," rejecting all four major sea-level datasets, and insisting that choosing the scenario that matches real-world emissions is "cherry-picking" isn’t scientific critique. It’s motivated avoidance.

And Yuyutsu’s "300 metres" rise? Pure folklore. No such prediction has ever appeared in the scientific literature.

The core point the science keeps confirming - and the thread keeps dancing around - is simple:

The SAR model’s short-term sea-level projections were remarkably accurate. That’s why this study matters. It shows the physics was sound even three decades ago.

Everything else here is noise to avoid acknowledging that the prediction matched reality.

Tried to look up total World shipping displacement & the figures vary from 2-3 billion tonnes, to 10 billion & 12 billon in 2024. Depends on which organisation does the surveys. This of course varies from fully laden to ships in ballast.
I can't find anything on how many tonnes of other displacement there is from run-off sediment & land reclamation.
there are 361 million square kilometres of water & 1 mm of water in one square kilometre is 1000 tonnes.
I only have five fingers on each hand at this stage so anyone with a good calculator can do the sums.
Some bright spark ones queried the difference between high & low tide.

Dear John,

I never claimed that I got this 300-meter information from IPCC or SAR: if only because I didn't (and still don't) know what these acronyms stood for!

But my friends and I did hear of it, around 1990. Perhaps from the radio, perhaps from the printed newspaper, or perhaps from friends: surely you don't expect me to remember some 35 years later where I heard it from!
It was based on the assumption that all glaciers will melt.

I had no particular reason to suspect the information:
It wasn't April Fool's day.
Nobody was to gain anything from it at my expense.
The topic was not yet controversial at the time.
It was only decades later that I heard about Margaret Thatcher, etc., etc.

So I took it at face value.
OK, so the seas are going to rise by 300 meters - what should I do?

I checked the maps of my vicinity to see which areas are above 300 meters.
There weren't much, but still there were some.
If I had the money at the time then I would purchase some farm-house in the higher regions.
But since I didn't, there was no change in my course of action - just continue saving.

And by then came the news: no, it's not 300 metres, that was a calculation error - it will only be 61 meters.

It was then that my brother saw his opportunity:
he happened to own an orchard, sloping down with the top edge at 63 meters above sea level. There was also a small dilapidated cottage at the top.
So he decided to build a big house next to the cottage, renovate the cottage and join the two. Some years later he moved to that house.
He was truly hoping to have a private beach there!
Now where is it?!

Later on, "they" (whoever they were, I don't remember) revised it down that the sea will only rise by 3 meters.
I then sighed in relief: "all that for just 3 meters?" and haven't thought about it again for a long time.

Yuyutsu,

What you've described isn't a scientific prediction being revised. It's a rumour evolving as it passes from person to person, with no identifiable source, no paper, no institution, no author, and no mechanism.

That matters.

There has never been a credible scientific claim, at any time, that global sea level would rise by 300 metres, 61 metres, or even 3 metres this century. Those numbers don't appear in IPCC reports, glaciology papers, or coastal science. Not in 1990. Not later. Not ever.

The only figure that vaguely resembles your memory is this:
If every land-based ice sheet on Earth melted completely, over many thousands of years, global sea level would rise by roughly 65-70 metres. That is a theoretical maximum, not a forecast, not a scenario, and certainly not something scientists ever suggested would happen on human timescales.

That distinction is crucial. A physical upper bound is not a prediction.

What seems to have happened is that an abstract scientific fact was stripped of its context, exaggerated in transmission, and then remembered as a concrete warning. That's very human, but it doesn't tell us anything about climate science or its reliability.

By contrast, what's being discussed in this thread does have a traceable source:
the IPCC's 1995 projections, published in SAR, and a modern peer-reviewed analysis showing that their short-term sea-level projections were remarkably accurate.

So the takeaway isn't "scientists kept changing their minds". It's that unattributed stories are not science, and shouldn't be treated as evidence against it.

Your anecdote explains how confusion spreads. It doesn't undermine the data being discussed here.

That's the key difference.

On another note, there is something irreconcilable between "Yuyutsu the Enlightened" and "Yuyutsu the Denier", and I think this thread exposes it rather cleanly:

- "Yuyutsu the Enlightened" values wisdom, openness, and detachment from dogma.
- "Yuyutsu the Denier" clings to unverified memories and treats their erosion as evidence of institutional failure.

Dear John,

«What you've described isn't a scientific prediction being revised.»

You are banging on an open door - I never said it was, I never even mentioned the word "science".
If other participants here did, then it is between you and them to sort out, but please do not get me involved.

As for "Yuyutsu the Denier", I do not deny (or affirm) climate science, I just happen not to relate to it, it is not my cup of tea.

At the time, it did not even occur to me to consult science on the matter - I just took it as fact just as most young people do: "the radio said - the radio must be correct, now what do I do?". You must remember that in 1990 the information was not available at the tip of our fingers like today, so had I been really keen to know the scientific side, I would have to use my legs rather than my fingers, walk into university libraries and physically knock on various doors, which would take me way more time than I had available.

Back then also, you should remember that very few even had an idea that the information in question may be disputed or political.

I understand well about the theoretical upper limit of 65-70 meters, but for that one would have to know the world-wide volume of glaciers and unless one specialises in that area, I don't recall they ever taught that in my school.

So OK, it wasn't science on the radio but someone else, now who exactly is to compensate my brother for his missed private beach?

The first of the "climate refugees" have arrived here from Tuvulu, which is reportedly sinking.

The rush for Australia is controlled so that Tuvulu won't suffer a 'brain drain'. That can only mean that we will be getting more idiots that we certainly do not need.

One of these "refugees" was described as a medical doctor, so he can't be much of one if they don't want a drain brain. Hopefully he won't be allowed to practise here.

Yuyutsu,

Thank you for the clarification. That helps, but it also makes something else important to address.

You describe yourself as neither affirming nor denying climate science, and as someone for whom it is "not my cup of tea". That would be a coherent position if it reflected your broader views. However, it doesn't sit comfortably with positions you've expressed elsewhere:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=22379#389644

In fact, your posting history is a litany of this sort of rot - which, as I said before, is irreconcileable with "Yuyutsu the Enlightened."

Such words are not the words of someone who simply 'does not relate' to climate science. They reflect a clear, strongly held dogmatic position of someone who does not care about evidence when it conflicts with an already settled worldview and the ego investment bound up in it.

You are, of course, entitled to that view. But once that context is acknowledged, it changes how your earlier sea-level anecdote functions in this discussion. It stops being a neutral recollection and becomes part of a broader denialist narrative, even if that wasn't your conscious intent.

That matters because the anecdote itself doesn't trace back to any scientific source, institution, or prediction. It arose from informal transmission, not from climate science. And informal transmission is precisely where exaggeration and distortion thrive, especially when there is no expectation of later verification.

So the point isn't to blame anyone for what they heard in 1990, or to demand scientific literacy retroactively. It's simply this:

Unattributed memories and second-hand stories can't be treated as evidence of scientific unreliability, particularly when the actual, traceable scientific record shows the opposite.

Once that distinction is made, the discussion becomes much clearer.

Dear John,

«However, it doesn't sit comfortably with positions you've expressed elsewhere:»

Well surely I have and never denied having my views regarding the socio-political phenomenon of claiming "climate-change": this is quite different to climate science.

The social tensions in question are independent of whatever science finds or does not find. People still want what they want (like my brother still wants a private beach in his yard) regardless and no science can change that. At the same time, nothing stops the true knowledge-seeking scientists from continuing their research freely without bias and exchanging their results accurately and reliably with their peers within their respective ivory towers.

In my specific post from March 2023 which you referred to, I suggested how this tension can be levered to help to gradually de-industrialise. This will be good whichever camp you stand with: if you want carbon emissions to reduce then indeed they will as overall industrial output reduces. This unhealthy hunger for energy needs to reduce, unrelatedly to climate, while changing the specific sources of energy is not going to do it.

Yuyutsu,

Your reply this time actually clarifies the issue further, but not in the way you to intend.

You now draw a distinction between "climate science" and the "socio-political phenomenon of claiming 'climate-change'", and suggest your views concern only the latter. But that separation doesn't do the work you want it to do.

Climate science is precisely what underpins those "claims". When you characterise climate change as a cult-like socio-political phenomenon, you are not bracketing science off into some neutral "ivory tower". You are delegitimising the evidentiary basis on which those claims rest, while simultaneously exempting yourself from engaging with that evidence.

That's not neutrality, it's a rhetorical partition to allow rejection of implications without confronting causes.

//nothing stops the true knowledge-seeking scientists from continuing their research freely without bias//

But this is exactly what is contradicted when climate science is framed as cultic, hysterical, or socially pathological. Once you cast the science as an ideological artefact, you are no longer merely critiquing policy responses, you are pre-judging the integrity of the knowledge-production process itself.

As for your March 2023 post: reframing it as a value-neutral strategy to "lever tensions" toward de-industrialisation doesn't resolve the contradiction. Advocating wide-spread impoverishment, mass unemployment, and service collapse as a "win-win" outcome is not a dispassionate perspective.

And that brings us back to the core point...

When evidence is treated as incidental, when outcomes are justified independently of facts, and when worldview is insulated from revision by carving off inconvenient domains as "socio-political", what's operating is not disinterest in science, but attachment to a settled position.

That attachment is what shaped the sea-level anecdote, just as it shapes the policy stance. Once that's acknowledged, the discussion becomes clearer: this isn't about scientists changing their minds, or politics distorting truth. It's about belief preceding evidence, rather than responding to it.

That's the tension I was pointing to.

Dear John,

Firstly, I enjoyed your response.

Now it is exactly your statement which I dispute:

«Climate science is precisely what underpins those "claims".»

No. Real humans do not operate that way.

In this particular case, while I am not saying that scientists have not been discussing climate way before among themselves, the big "hu hah" on this topic started with Margaret Thatcher and her war against coal-miner unions. Her mention of "climate change" was not motivated by learning about it from scientists, but by her ambition to replace coal with nuclear energy, thereby reducing the miners' power.

Whether the claims happen to coincide with scientific knowledge or otherwise, is a totally different question. In reality, those claims - and counter-claims too, were made because that was in the interest of the people who claimed them. In reality, people pick and choose what they like. Science may provide them with ammunition, but I find it silly: nobody will ever be convinced by science if it goes against their interests, so better keep science out of this.

«But this is exactly what is contradicted when climate science is framed as cultic, hysterical, or socially pathological.»

There could be some who do that, but I don't.
I make a clear distinction between climate science and climate hysteria.
Moreover, I do not believe that those who talk that much about climate, really care for the earth's climate - they care much more for the social climate!

«Advocating wide-spread impoverishment, mass unemployment, and service collapse as a "win-win" outcome is not a dispassionate perspective.»

Short term restraint for great long term benefits.

«what's operating is not disinterest in science, but attachment to a settled position.»

And if you haven't been convinced yet that this is the norm, you can review the predictable responses of the same people here, year after year. Can you name anyone here on OLO (besides yourself perhaps) who truly has an interest in science and not just as ammunition?

«It's about belief preceding evidence, rather than responding to it.»

Yes, welcome to the real world...

That's true, Yuyutsu.

//No. Real humans do not operate that way.//

Humans are not purely evidence-driven, and political actors frequently instrumentalise science in service of prior interests. That's not controversial, it's basic political sociology.

Where we part ways is what follows from that...

//...the big 'hu hah' on this topic started with Margaret Thatcher and her war against coal-miner unions.//

Even if one accepts that framing, it doesn't do the work you think it does. The political origins of attention to a problem do not determine the validity of the evidence that later accumulates around it. Germ theory didn't become false because sanitation reform was politically useful, and plate tectonics didn't become a myth because it disrupted institutional geology.

Science does not become optional simply because people behave strategically around it.

//nobody will ever be convinced by science if it goes against their interests, so better keep science out of this.//

That isn't neutrality toward science, it's resignation from it. It treats evidence as irrelevant to belief formation, not because the evidence is weak, but because belief is assumed to be immune. That's a philosophical position, not an observational one.

And that's where the contradiction lies.

//I make a clear distinction between climate science and climate hysteria.//

Yet you also characterise the claims built on that science as socially motivated, cult-like, and interest-driven. In practice, that functions as a standing reason to discount the evidence without engaging it. The distinction exists rhetorically, but it collapses operationally.

//Short term restraint for great long term benefits.//

That's a normative judgement that those costs are acceptable regardless of what the evidence says about alternatives. It's a legitimate value position—but it isn't disinterest in science.

//Yes, welcome to the real world…//

That doesn't rebut my point. It affirms it. And once belief is conceded to precede evidence, the claim to enlightened detachment no longer holds. What remains is an honest, but settled, worldview in which evidence is permitted to decorate beliefs, not revise them.

That's not a moral failing - but it isn't neutrality either. That's the distinction I've been drawing throughout.

Dear John,

Indeed, the political origins of attention to a problem do not determine the validity of the evidence that later accumulates around it.

Yet this particular case of "global warming" was a bit different: the trend did not start with giving attention to a recognised problem, but with seeing an opportunity and claiming a "problem" to seize it.

Even if that increased attention later uncovered a real issue (and I rather use "issue" here because something becomes a "problem" only when people don't like what is happening), that was unknown at the time of claiming the "problem".

In other words, even if evidence was accumulated later, that was evidence for a new problem altogether, not to the originally-claimed "problem": even if the wording of the two "problems" was the same, they were two different problems - one fake, the other true.

«It treats evidence as irrelevant to belief formation, not because the evidence is weak, but because belief is assumed to be immune.»

And in this particular highly-charged case, stemming, developing and growing way out of proportion and out of hand from Margaret's original lie, belief IS immune (and discussing evidence is a sheer waste of time).

«Yet you also characterise the claims built on that science as socially motivated,...»

The claims were not built on science. Even if today they COULD have perhaps been built on science, that was not possible at the time of making them.

«It's a legitimate value position—but it isn't disinterest in science.»

Well of course, this was in the context of diverting a bit to discuss de-industrialisation, not climate science.

«And once belief is conceded to precede evidence, the claim to enlightened detachment no longer holds.»

I made no such claim.
I am not a spiritual master, only a student.

Yuyutsu,

I know that in essence you are in a discussion with another commentator but I'd like to add this:

Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue.

According to Scientific American "This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public."

So when you say: "the trend did not start with giving attention to a recognised problem, but with seeing an opportunity and claiming a "problem" to seize it." .... you could not be further from the truth.

The problem was known by the fossil fuel industry and they hid it from the public.

The problem could not be hidden for ever.

This is merely an assertion, Yuyutsu:

//...the trend did not start with giving attention to a recognised problem, but with seeing an opportunity and claiming a "problem" to seize it.//

It requires decades of pre-Thatcher climate research to be treated as incidental, and political opportunism to be explanatorily primary. But, even if one granted your narrative, it still wouldn't do what you need it to do.

//...even if evidence was accumulated later, that was evidence for a new problem altogether, not to the originally-claimed "problem".//

That isn't scepticism. It's insulation.

You're redefining "the problem" after the fact so that later evidence is ruled irrelevant by construction. That makes the claim unfalsifiable: evidence can never count, because it is always deemed to concern "a different problem".

//...belief IS immune...//

At this point you're no longer describing human behaviour, you're endorsing a stance. Declaring evidence irrelevant in principle is not neutrality. It's a settled philosophical position about how beliefs are to be held - hence my point.

//The claims were not built on science.//

This simply isn't true of the scientific claims themselves. Greenhouse theory, radiative forcing and climate physics long pre-date the political episodes you keep returning to. Opportunistic framing doesn't sever the evidentiary lineage of the science.

//...this was in the context of diverting a bit to discuss de-industrialisation, not climate science.//

But that diversion is revealing. You explicitly endorse large-scale social outcomes independently of what the evidence says about alternatives.

//I made no such claim. I am not a spiritual master, only a student.//

Whether one claims mastery or studenthood isn't the issue. The issue is whether one treats evidence as something that can, in principle, revise beliefs. You've repeatedly said that in this case it cannot, and that engaging with it is pointless.

Mastery isn't the issue. The issue is whether evidence is allowed, in principle, to revise belief. You've repeatedly said that in this case it cannot, and that engaging with it is pointless.

Once that's conceded, enlightened detachment no longer applies. What remains is a settled worldview that evidence may accompany, but not challenge.

Dear John,

«But, even if one granted your narrative, it still wouldn't do what you need it to do.»

Do I need anything done? That is news to me!
Maybe my brother does... to pump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere so he can finally get his private beach...

No - I am only replying to the points you raised in your posts to me, one at a time and my only reason for doing so is that you raised them: it is you who ties up my various responses into some spaghetti, as if they are related to each other in some attempt to achieve some mysterious agenda.

You mentioned for example that «the claim to enlightened detachment no longer holds», so wasn't it my duty in that case to clarify that I never personally claimed enlightened detachment? wasn't it my duty then to prevent OLO members from mistakenly considering me to be an enlightened master while in fact I am only a student? This had nothing to do with the preceding "climate" discussion, so why have you tangled the two together?

You similarly referred to one of my posts from 2023 and I still have no idea why you selected that particular one, so wasn't it my duty to explain it? to clarify that the main reason I wrote that at the time was not directly related to "climate, etc.", but just as an opportunity to use that crisis as a lever for an unrelated good cause?

I repeat: I have no agenda (though my brother may have, so I started off here by presenting his plea) in this matter, I only respond to your claims of me.

Not necessarily at all, Yuyutsu.

//Do I need anything done?//

You don't need an agenda for an argument to have implications. When a position is advanced, defended, or clarified, it either coheres or it doesn't. Pointing out what a line of reasoning entails is not attributing motives; it's analysing consequences.

//it is you who ties up my various responses into some spaghetti, as if they are related to each other…//

They're related because they are all responses to the same underlying issue: how evidence, belief, and value commitments are treated. If your replies were genuinely unrelated, they wouldn't repeatedly return to the same themes - belief immunity, science as "ammunition", evidence as irrelevant, and outcomes justified independently of facts.

Coherence isn't imposed from outside, it's assessed across what's been said.

//wasn't it my duty… to clarify that I never personally claimed enlightened detachment?//

I know you haven’t. I wasn’t attributing a title or spiritual status to you.

My observation about the juxtaposition between the two Yuyutsu’s I see on OLO was a passing aside, which is why it appeared at the end of the post and was introduced with “On another note…”, after I had already addressed your 300-metre claim.

//This had nothing to do with the preceding "climate" discussion, so why have you tangled the two together?//

They were introduced together in the course of the discussion. When positions on climate, evidence, and belief are justified by appeal to worldview, resignation from persuasion, or value-first reasoning, they don’t sit in isolation. They inform how claims are framed and defended, whether intentionally or not.

//I have no agenda… I only respond to your claims of me.//

Again, agenda isn't the issue. The issue is whether evidence is allowed, in principle, to revise belief. You've repeatedly said that in this case it is not, and that engaging with it is pointless. That's a substantive position, regardless of motive.

Once that's conceded, the analysis follows. No agenda is required.

That's not a moral judgement. But it does mean the stance isn't neutral.

And that remains the distinction I've been drawing throughout.

Dear John,

So to prevent a long and unmanageable spaghetti, here we have 3 completely separate topics.

1. "climate change" (the original thread).
2. My wish for de-industrialisation (rising here from your referring to my post from 2023).
3. My presumed "enlightened detachment".

#3 is the easiest to deal with:
I know that you know that I weren't claiming "enlightenment detachment", but we are not alone here and other readers could understand from your words that I did claim so.

#2, I think, should be a topic for a separate future discussion.

So back on topic now: "belief immunity" (within the context of "climate change").

There exists natural science alright.

But besides, there also exists a socio-political phenomenon of shouting "climate change" from the rooftops (formerly "global warming").

It is my view that this phenomenon represents a social movement desiring to enforce a particular political identity on society et large; and that in essence, this movement has little to do with our physical environment, that being only a pretext.

Within that movement, people use whatever means available at their disposal, so those scientifically-inclined (like yourself) use science as their weapon of choice, while others, perhaps the less-intelligent ones, simply shout to scare: "300 meters, 300 meters". Others yet, use political and financial levers, yet the purpose is the same.

The danger from that tyrannical movement far exceeds the danger of the sea rising (apparently by less than one meter, that's all!), the temperature rising by a few degrees, the loss of barrier-reef tourism or the extinction of polar bears (which were recently shown to adapt well to higher temperatures and I saw one myself happily basking in the midday heat of the Singapore zoo), etc.

The view that this socio-political issue should be dealt with using scientific tools, is a one-sided tactic of that movement in an attempt to choose a battlefield where they believe they have an advantage.

No reasonable general would take that bait!

Thank you for such a candid response, Yuyutsu.

//So to prevent a long and unmanageable spaghetti, here we have 3 completely separate topics.//

I’m happy to accept that separation for the sake of clarity.

//There exists natural science alright.//

Agreed.

//But besides, there also exists a socio-political phenomenon of shouting "climate change" from the rooftops.//

This is where your position is now unambiguous. You are no longer describing how people sometimes behave around science - you are asserting that the dominant climate discourse is primarily a political movement, and that engagement with evidence is merely one of its tactics.

At that point, the role of evidence has already been decided in advance.

//The view that this socio-political issue should be dealt with using scientific tools, is a one-sided tactic.//

That is precisely the stance I've been describing throughout. Once scientific engagement is framed as a battlefield to be avoided rather than a means of adjudication, belief is no longer responsive to evidence in principle.

That isn't neutrality. It's a prior commitment.

//No reasonable general would take that bait!//

That metaphor is telling. It confirms that what's being rejected here isn't flawed evidence, but the very idea that evidence should be decisive at all.

At that point, we're no longer discussing climate science or even public communication. We're discussing an ideological posture in which evidence is subordinated to perceived power struggles.

That may be a sincerely held worldview. But once adopted, it resolves the question we've been circling.

The stance is not one of detachment, scepticism, or neutrality. It is one in which belief is insulated by design.

And that's the distinction I've been drawing throughout.

Dear John,

«you are asserting that the dominant climate discourse is primarily a political movement, and that engagement with evidence is merely one of its tactics.»

Perfectly put. You seem to be better with words than myself!

«At that point, we're no longer discussing climate science or even public communication. We're discussing an ideological posture in which evidence is subordinated to perceived power struggles.»

Yes again, I enjoy your succinct language and let me take it a step further:

Suppose, let us imagine, that a rare new species of moss (or moth perhaps, whichever) is discovered which devours atmospheric carbon dioxide at a rate faster than anything seen before, so it is cultivated and within a month, atmospheric CO2 drops to pre-industrial levels.

The "climate-change" people would then be wearing Sackcloth and ashes because their thoughts were never truly related to our environment.

I suspect this does work than you intend, Yuyutsu:

//Suppose… atmospheric CO2 drops to pre-industrial levels… The "climate-change" people would then be wearing sackcloth and ashes…//

Your hypothetical isn't a test of motives, it's a declaration of unfalsifiability.

You've constructed a scenario in which no empirical outcome could ever count as evidence that concern about climate was sincere or evidence-responsive. If CO2 rises, the concern is hysteria; if CO2 falls, the concern is exposed as pretext. Either way, the conclusion is fixed in advance.

That's not scepticism. It's more confirmation by design.

More importantly, the hypothetical quietly concedes the very thing you claim is irrelevant: that atmospheric CO2 levels do matter physically. Your imagined solution targets CO2 precisely because it is causally linked to climate. The fact that a technological fix would change the policy landscape wouldn't reveal bad faith, it would simply demonstrate responsiveness to evidence.

And that's the distinction that keeps resurfacing.

- A stance that allows evidence to resolve a problem is epistemic.
- A stance that pre-judges every possible resolution as proof of ulterior motive is ideological.

Once again, that's not a moral criticism. My point is that the latter is no longer neutral or detached, nor is it open to revision.

And that's something I think we both understand.

Dear John,

«Your hypothetical isn't a test of motives, it's a declaration of unfalsifiability.»

Unfalsifiability of what?

Not of climate-science - because nothing stops the scientists in their ivory towers from doing good research.

Or did you mean of the social phenomenon?

I suppose one could design an experiment (it may not be ethical, but): lock up a sample of climate-change-supporting criminal prisoners in a designated prison wing with limited access to true world news, alongside a non-climate-change-supporting control group in another wing, then tell them the [false] story about that moss/moth and secretly monitor whether they are smiling or crying.

«More importantly, the hypothetical quietly concedes the very thing you claim is irrelevant»

In my hypothetical case, CO2 levels drop.
I made no assertion as to whether and how climate responds: either way, whether climate responds or otherwise, what is relevant is that climate-change-people, who presumably had all their Christmases come true, can no longer ask others to identify with them by reducing carbon emissions.

«And that's something I think we both understand.»

We do. I think we always did.

Yuyutsu,

I'm referring to the "unfalsifiability" of the claim you are making about the climate discourse itself.

//Unfalsifiability of what?//

Not climate science. Not physical mechanisms. But your assertion that concern about climate is, in essence, a pretext for political identity and power.

Your hypothetical is structured so that no conceivable outcome could ever count against that claim.

//Not of climate-science - because nothing stops the scientists in their ivory towers from doing good research.//

Agreed. That’s precisely why unfalsifiability does not apply to climate science here. It applies to the social diagnosis you’re advancing about motives and movements.

//Or did you mean of the social phenomenon?//

Yes. Exactly that.

You’ve constructed a frame in which:

- concern about rising CO2 proves hysteria, and
- resolution of CO2 proves ulterior motive.

In neither case is there a possible observation that would allow you to say, "I was wrong about what’s driving this."

That’s what unfalsifiability means.

//In my hypothetical case, CO2 levels drop… what is relevant is that climate-change-people… can no longer ask others to identify with them.//

That sentence does the work for me.

You’re no longer evaluating claims about climate or evidence. You’re evaluating who gets to make demands, mobilise norms, or shape identity. The physical outcome is secondary to the social consequence.

That’s a coherent political worldview, but it confirms that evidence is not playing an adjudicative role.

//We do. I think we always did.//

Perhaps. But earlier you described this as neutrality, detachment, and disinterest in science. What you’ve now articulated is a settled ideological stance about power, identity, and persuasion.

That’s not a criticism. But it resolves the question we started with.

The issue was never whether climate science exists. It was whether evidence is allowed, in principle, to revise belief.

On your own account, it isn’t.

And with that made explicit, there’s really nothing left to untangle.

Dear John,

Regarding this unfalsifiability:

It is indeed difficult to falsify, but not entirely impossible, not in theory at least.

To verify or refute my claim, it seems that we would need either mind-reading skills, or manipulative misinformation - both unethical, but perhaps you could come up with a third method that I haven't considered, who knows?

Essentially we have 3 groups of people:
1) C-MOB, propagating the idea of "climate change" on socio-political grounds.
2) R-MOB, rubbishing the idea of "climate change" on socio-political grounds.
3) S-MOB, asking "what does climate-science say?".

My claim is that:
|S-MOB| << min(|C-MOB|,|R-MOB|)

Now here are 4 possible scenarios and how people would feel about them:

1) People/states make great effort to reduce carbon-emissions and the climate improves:

C-MOB: very happy
R-MOB: very sad
S-MOB: happy

2) People/states make great effort, but climate does not improve:

C-MOB: happy but concerned
R-MOB: sad but hopeful
S-MOB: sad

3) People/states stop efforts, but climate improves:

C-MOB: very sad
R-MOB: very happy
S-MOB: happy

4) People/states stop efforts and climate does not improve:

C-MOB: sad but hopeful
R-MOB: happy but concerned
S-MOB: sad

So, if some experiment could convince people (unethically, by lying to them) that scenario #3 has occurred and monitored their reaction covertly, then this should easily prove or refute that |S-MOB| << |C-MOB|.
Similarly if an experiment could convince people that scenario #1 has occurred, then this should easily prove or refute that |S-MOB| << |R-MOB|.

Thanks for laying it out so explicitly, Yuyutsu.

You've proposed three groups (C-MOB, R-MOB, S-MOB) and suggest that, in principle, experiments or deception could reveal their relative sizes.

But this doesn't resolve the unfalsifiability problem, it merely restates it because your framework assumes motives first and classifies people accordingly:

- Support for mitigation is treated as socio-political (C-MOB).
- Opposition to mitigation is treated as socio-political (R-MOB).
- Only those who behave in a narrowly defined, expectation-conforming way qualify as S-MOB.

As a result, evidence-responsiveness is never allowed to explain mass behaviour. It is ruled out by definition.

That's why S-MOB must always be small, marginal, and methodologically elusive in your model. The conclusion |S-MOB| << min(|C-MOB|, |R-MOB|) is not being tested - it's built into the classification scheme.

Your four scenarios reinforce this rather than challenge it.

In none of your scenarios is there a possible outcome in which widespread concern about climate could count as sincere, evidence-driven engagement. Whether the climate improves or worsens, motives are interpreted as political in advance.

That's exactly what I meant by unfalsifiability: no empirical outcome is permitted to revise the underlying diagnosis.

You're right that testing motives directly would require mind-reading or unethical manipulation. But that isn't a rescue, it's the tell.

A claim whose truth depends on internal states that are declared inaccessible - and whose behavioural evidence is dismissed as pretextual - cannot be corrected by ordinary evidence. That's what makes it insulated.

So basically, you haven't identified something I was "missing". You've made explicit an assumption that was previously implicit (i.e. that evidence cannot, even in principle, explain large-scale climate concern).

Once that assumption is realised, the rest of the analysis follows. Which means the stance isn't neutral, detached, or evidence-responsive in the way scientific inquiry requires.

I hope this is clear.

Dear John,

What can I say - the social sciences involving humans are more tricky and fragile than other branches of science. There may be more nuances and subtle corrections, but in essence my model stands.

Let me clarify that S-MOB is not narrowly defined: anyone who either supports, opposes or is indifferent to "mitigation" on purely scientific/climatic grounds is counted in the S-MOB. Common to all these people, whether they support or oppose, or however they understand or misunderstand the science (or even know nothing about it), is that when climate improves they are happy and when climate worsens they are sad - that regardless of how improvement is achieved or what causes the climate to worsen.

Also, your use of "mitigation" is shifting the goal-posts, because I was referring to one's attitude towards the IDEA of climate-change rather than to what (if any) they like to actually do about it.

Having clarified that, I see no reason for you to further object to the logic of my division of people into these 3 categories as defined in my previous post.

«In none of your scenarios is there a possible outcome in which widespread concern about climate could count as sincere, evidence-driven engagement. Whether the climate improves or worsens, motives are interpreted as political in advance.»

Suppose you see the same people unconditionally happy when climate improves and unconditionally sad when climate worsens, that clearly indicates their belonging to S-MOB and if you can find enough of them then that would refute my claim.

Yuyutsu,

Thank you for the clarification. It helps, but it doesn't resolve the issue I raised.

Broadening S-MOB after the fact doesn't address the core problem, because the defining criterion remains an assumed internal motive rather than an observable epistemic stance.

You now say S-MOB consists of those who are "unconditionally happy when climate improves and unconditionally sad when it worsens, regardless of cause." But that is not an empirical category. It is a psychological idealisation inferred from behaviour.

There is no reliable way to establish that a person's emotional response is:

1. unconditional,
2. solely climate-driven, and
3. independent of trade-offs, uncertainty, ethics, or collateral consequences.

So while you describe a possible refutation in principle, it is not operationally accessible. That is exactly what makes the claim insulated.

This is why my objection was not about the size of S-MOB, but about how the framework treats evidence-responsive concern by default. Large-scale engagement is never permitted to count as sincere unless it matches a psychologically pure template that real humans rarely meet.

That's not scepticism. It's classification by exclusion.

So we're back to the same point: the model does not allow evidence, in practice, to explain widespread concern. Political motivation is assumed first, and alternative explanations are ruled out by definition.

That's the claim I've been analysing. Your clarifications don't remove that structure; they restate it.

Dear John,

«Broadening S-MOB after the fact»

No, it is what I meant all along, I just had to clarify it because you suggested otherwise:
The S-MOB asks "what does climate-science say?" because they care for the climate and nothing else.

(I know, you could bring in a fourth group: H-MOB, of sociopaths who hate the climate and rejoice to see the earth flooded by the ocean, burned down and swept by hurricanes, but I assumed that they are rare enough to ignore)

«There is no reliable way to establish that a person's emotional response is:»

Psychology is more difficult than other sciences, so much that some argued that it is not a science at all, yet it still constitutes a respectable scientific field, with the necessary cautions, so experiments need to be designed more carefully and are also fraught with ethical issues.

Here, looking at the issue as a case for climate-science because it is easier than psychology, is akin to looking for the lost coin under the lamppost.

«So while you describe a possible refutation in principle, it is not operationally accessible»

Patience: it sometimes took scientists decades to design a good and practically full-proof experiment; and we gave it only a few hours so far.

«the model does not allow evidence, in practice, to explain widespread concern.»

And the concern is?

You seem to claim that the concern is about earth's climate (which scientists already research extensively). I claim that it is our socio-political climate that is at stake and only a rather-small minority cares more about the earth's physical climate than about the social conditions they will have to put up with.

Yuyutsu,

We're now going in circles, and I think it's worth being explicit about why.

Whether S-MOB was "meant all along" to be broad or not doesn't matter. What matters is how the model actually operates. And it still operates by treating internal motive as decisive, while treating all observable behaviour as politically contaminated by default.

That's the structural issue.

You keep suggesting that with enough patience, better psychology, or future experiments, this could be resolved. But at the same time, you insist that widespread public concern cannot count as evidence-responsive because it is already presumed to be socio-political in origin.

Those two claims can't both be true.

If evidence-responsiveness is only allowed to count when it takes the form of a psychologically "pure" emotional response that is:

- unconditional,
- internally motivated,
- disentangled from social trade-offs,
- and identifiable independently of behaviour,

then the category is not just hard to observe. It is methodologically inaccessible in practice.

That's not a limitation of psychology. It's a consequence of how the framework is set up.

And that's why redefining "the concern" doesn't help. Each redefinition simply ensures that evidence which doesn't fit the diagnosis is excluded in advance.

So to be clear: my objection has never been that psychology is difficult, or that motives are complex. It's that your model requires motives to do all the explanatory work while simultaneously declaring them unreachable except by assumption.

That's the insulation I've been pointing to from the start.

At this point, I don't think we disagree about facts so much as about what kinds of explanations are allowed to count.

Dear John,

«At this point, I don't think we disagree about facts so much as about what kinds of explanations are allowed to count.»

If so then we do not need to go on, but I am not quite sure what facts exactly you wish to explain?

The facts of climate science - I am not even going into it.

The facts about people's present attitudes towards climate and climate science?

If this is what you meant, then as we agree on the facts as you say, we can agree on the fact that MOST people today treat the topic of "climate-change" as political and are therefore not genuinely interested in climate-science (except as a political tool, so long as it supports their political views). Thus also, most people's attitude towards "mitigation" follows their political persuasion, so most of both those who support or oppose "mitigation", even while claiming otherwise, are in fact, first and foremost, seeking solidarity with their camp rather than some physical and/or economical outcome.

Is that agreed?

Around 1990 that was different.
At the time, myself and nearly everyone naively believed that climate means climate and science means science.

Dear John,

«At this point, I don't think we disagree about facts so much as about what kinds of explanations are allowed to count.»

If so then we do not need to go on, but I am not quite sure what facts exactly you wish to explain?

The facts of climate science - I am not even going into it.

The facts about people's present attitudes towards climate and climate science?

If this is what you meant, then as we agree on the facts as you say, we can agree on the fact that MOST people today treat the topic of "climate-change" as political and are therefore not genuinely interested in climate-science (except as a political tool, so long as it supports their political views). Thus most people's attitude towards "mitigation" follows their political persuasion, so most of both those who support or oppose "mitigation", even while claiming otherwise, are in fact, first and foremost, seeking solidarity with their camp rather than some physical and/or economical outcome.

Is that agreed?

Around 1990 that was different.
At the time, myself and nearly everyone naively believed that climate means climate and science means science.

Yuyutsu,

I don't think that formulation can be agreed to as stated, and the reason matters.

Yes, public discourse around climate is heavily politicised.
Yes, many people express views in ways that signal group identity.
Yes, science is often used rhetorically in public debate.

None of that is in dispute.

What doesn't follow is the claim that most people are therefore not genuinely evidence-responsive, or that science functions merely as a political tool rather than as a causal input into belief formation.

Those are stronger claims, and they require more than observation of politicisation to sustain.

People routinely form beliefs under mixed conditions:

- evidence filtered through trust,
- identity pressures,
- institutional credibility,
- ethical weighting,
- and practical constraints.

That mixture does not reduce to "politics first, evidence irrelevant". It describes how evidence actually operates in social contexts.

As for 1990, I don't think the difference was epistemic purity. It was salience. The issue was less identity-laden, less polarised, and less entangled with immediate costs. That changes behaviour, not the underlying relationship between evidence and belief.

So no, I don't agree that "most people" are uninterested in climate science except as a political weapon. I agree that many people engage with it through political lenses. That's a very different claim.

And that distinction is precisely what we've been circling throughout.

Dear John,

Here is a subtle difference:

You began by stating what we already agree regarding discourse, views and rhetoric.

Well and good, but then you turned to speak about beliefs:

«People routinely form beliefs under mixed conditions:»

We could indeed get into analysing, as you just did, how beliefs are formed, but I don't think that would be necessary here, due to the subtle difference between discourse, views and rhetoric on the one hand, and beliefs on the other.

NORMALLY indeed, beliefs determine discourse, views and rhetoric.
NORMALLY, as an analogy, chemical properties determine the arrangement of atoms into molecules.

But,

When the temperature rises sufficiently, matter turns into the state of plasma, where chemistry no longer counts and molecules are not formed.

Similarly, when the socio-political temperature gets as high as in this super-charged "climate change" debate, when stakes are so high, beliefs no longer count in discourse, views and rhetoric: they are bypassed!

Understanding this, personally, I consciously avoid holding any beliefs regarding climate/climate-science, as they won't matter anyway.
Others who do not understand this, may form beliefs this way or the other, only to bypass them when entering a debate on the topic (including even just with themselves), so why even waste their time?

In 1990, of course, the situation was "normal", the socio-political pressures were at room-temperature, so then beliefs still mattered, and evidence mattered accordingly, as an important ingredient.
At the time, discourse, views and rhetoric were primarily determined by beliefs - not so today.

Thanks for that, Yuyutsu. You've confirmed the structure I was pointing to.

What you're now describing is not a dispute about how beliefs are formed, but a position in which beliefs are declared irrelevant under conditions of political salience.

Once that move is made, the rest follows automatically.

If beliefs are said to be "bypassed" rather than distorted, constrained, or mediated, then no amount of evidence can ever count as explanatory. Discourse becomes self-contained, and all observable behaviour is treated as epiphenomenal to politics.

That isn't an empirical finding. It's a stipulation about what kinds of explanations are permitted.

Your plasma analogy illustrates this well, but not in the way you intend. In physics, phase transitions are identified by independent, testable mechanisms. Here, the "transition" consists of declaring belief irrelevant by definition, not demonstrating its absence or causal impotence.

So when you say you consciously avoid holding beliefs about climate because they "won't matter anyway", that isn't neutrality toward science. It's resignation from epistemic engagement under precisely the conditions where it matters most.

That position is coherent, but it's also exactly what I've been describing throughout.

At that point, we're no longer disagreeing about climate, psychology, or sociology. We're disagreeing about whether belief and evidence are allowed, even in principle, to do explanatory work in contested domains.

Dear John,

Well surely there comes a point where belief and evidence have to be suspended: suppose someone was running and trying to take shelter from the bullets in Bondi beach while someone else tapped on their shoulder, "hey, wait a minute, I need to ask you which Hanukkah song you like better?"...

I believe that this point has been reached in the particular case of "climate-change", while you seem to believe that it has not.

Yes, in physics, phase transitions are identified by independent, testable mechanisms and here too I suggested such a test:

Normally, 99.9% of people consistently care for their environment and would be happy to hear when climate improves and sad to hear when it worsens.

Not so past the phase transition.

A careful psychological experiment for testing this, albeit difficult and likely complicated with ethical issues, is theoretically possible to design and should likely also be possible in practice if sufficiently desired.

If the result of this experiment shows that we haven't crossed that phase transition, then it may still be meaningful to discuss earth's climate.
Otherwise, we better instead directly discuss and negotiate the socio-political climate we want to live in.

Yuyutsu,

Your reply doesn't advance the analysis, it restates the same boundary condition more explicitly.

Your Bondi Beach analogy conflates situational urgency with epistemic suspension. Running from bullets temporarily suspends deliberation because action is time-critical, not because belief and evidence have ceased to matter. The beliefs about what bullets are, where danger lies, and how shelter works are doing all the causal work in that moment.

Climate change is not analogous. It is a long-horizon, cumulative phenomenon whose only tractable responses depend on evidence-guided belief formation and coordination over time. Declaring belief "suspended" here is not a response to urgency; it is a refusal of epistemic engagement.

The same applies to your proposed "phase transition" test. You continue to define the transition in terms of inferred emotional states while treating behavioural and attitudinal evidence as politically contaminated by default. That doesn't establish a mechanism. It stipulates an exclusion.

So when you say that if the transition has occurred, we should abandon discussion of the physical climate and negotiate social arrangements instead, you're no longer describing what people do. You're prescribing what should be treated as legitimate to discuss.

That is a coherent philosophical position. But it is not an empirical finding, and it is not neutral with respect to evidence.

At this point, the disagreement is no longer about psychology or climate. It is about whether contested domains justify suspending belief and evidence rather than working harder to discipline them.

We differ there, and that difference is now fully explicit.

Dear John,

It is no secret that every analogy has its limitations.
It should be quite easy to pick up on the limitations, even when irrelevant, as a way to avoid the message.

Let me get more specific in this Bondi-beach analogy, while I understand that whatever I describe, there is no way to stop you from forever finding faults with the analogy, if so you choose.

Suppose the person asking you which Hanukkah song you prefer, is the 8-year-old daughter of the shooter. She is too young to hold a rifle, so she was instructed by her father instead: "Go among these Jews and discuss Hanukkah songs with them, trying to hold them in one spot as long as you can so I have time to aim and shoot".

Do you expect me to tell her which is my favourite song and why?
As I told you earlier, "No reasonable general would take that bait!".

But then you already said it yourself:
«The beliefs about what bullets are, where danger lies, and how shelter works are doing all the causal work in that moment.»

The danger lies in the socio-political intentions - the luxury of discussing climate (or even thinking about it) can wait for a better day.

«It is about whether contested domains justify suspending belief and evidence rather than working harder to discipline them.»

So now it is all about disciplining others who refuse to engage with you in your battlefield of choice?

"What did your first husband die of?" - "Poison".
"What did your second husband die of?" - "Poison".
"What did your third husband die of?" - "Poison".
"What did your fourth husband die of?" - "a bullet to the head".
"Why was it different?" - "because he refused to drink his coffee".

When the teeth are starting to expose, all discussions end.

Yuyutsu,

Your latest reply doesn't add much in the way of new content, it sounds more like you're just raises the emotional stakes to prevent it.

By escalating the analogy to mass violence, manipulated children, and existential threat, you're no longer illustrating a point about epistemology. You're asserting that engagement itself is dangerous and that refusal to deliberate is therefore justified.

That is the move I've been describing throughout.

At this point, belief and evidence aren't said to be distorted, mediated, or difficult to use. They're declared illegitimate because the situation is framed as too hostile to permit them. It's a justification for disengagement.

Your repeated analogies all point to the same conclusion: when one party defines the context as existential threat, discussion ends by design. But that isn't an argument against evidence-guided belief. It's an argument for suspending it.

I don't accept that move, and I don't think anything further will be gained by extending the analogies.

It seems we're no longer disagreeing about climate, psychology, or politics. We're disagreeing about whether fear, urgency, or perceived hostility are sufficient grounds to exempt a topic from epistemic standards.

That difference is now clear.

Dear John,

«fear, urgency, or perceived hostility are sufficient grounds to exempt a topic from epistemic standards.»

They are more than sufficient grounds to avoid and stay away from a topic. It would in fact be imprudent and foolish to do otherwise.

«You're asserting that engagement itself is dangerous and that refusal to deliberate is therefore justified.»

Even if it were not dangerous, I do not need to justify my refusal to deliberate: I do not owe it to you to discuss (or even think about) your favourite topics whenever you say "jump", how less so your baits.

The question is, what would you do if I refuse?

And you did earlier drop a hint of your intention: «...whether contested domains justify suspending belief and evidence rather than working harder to DISCIPLINE them.»

- You will first speak nicely and use every rhetorical tool at your disposal to win over those you wish to proselytise and recruit for your cause, but should they refuse to engage and/or succumb - you will then bully and DISCIPLINE them.

Teeth exposing - discussion ending.

Yuyutsu,

There's a misattribution here that needs to be corrected. I have never claimed that you owe me deliberation, engagement, or belief.

You are entirely free to avoid any topic you wish, for any reason, without justification. That was never in dispute.

What I challenged was the attempt to elevate disengagement itself into an epistemic virtue - to treat refusal to deliberate under conditions of contestation as evidence of prudence rather than as a choice with consequences for explanation.

That is a very different claim.

Nothing I've said implies proselytising, recruitment, bullying, or "discipline" of those who refuse to engage. Those intentions are being projected, not inferred. Pointing out what a position entails is not coercion, and epistemic standards are not instruments of force.

At this point, the discussion has moved away from analysis and into attribution of motives I do not hold.

Dear John,

«What I challenged was the attempt to elevate disengagement itself into an epistemic virtue»

Nobody claimed disengagement to be related to epistemology - rather, there are situations when refraining from engagement is the best for health and safety.

«epistemic standards are not instruments of force.»

Normally they are not, nor is banana peel a weapon, but what happened to [Leviticus 19:14],
“Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord.“?

«At this point, the discussion has moved away from analysis and into attribution of motives I do not hold.»

That is rich from someone who opens the discussion with «My, my, my. When the cat’s away…»

Yuyutsu,

//Nobody claimed disengagement to be related to epistemology - rather, there are situations when refraining from engagement is the best for health and safety.//

You are now explicitly framing disengagement as prudent under threat. My objection has never been to your right to disengage, but to the attempt to generalise that prudence into an explanatory principle about contested domains. That move is epistemic, whether intended or not.

//epistemic standards are not instruments of force.//

Correct - and unlike banana peels, epistemic standards are not situational hazards that become weapons by reinterpretation. Treating standards as morally dangerous because they can be perceived as pressure collapses the distinction between critique and coercion entirely.

//what happened to Leviticus 19:14…//

Invoking scripture to equate critical engagement with placing stumbling blocks reinforces the point I've been making: standards are being reframed as harm rather than evaluated as tools of inquiry. That is a moral veto, not an argument.

//there are situations when refraining from engagement is the best for health and safety.//

No disagreement here. But that is a personal boundary decision, not a basis for exempting an entire subject from epistemic scrutiny or recasting disengagement as virtue.

//That is rich from someone who opens the discussion with «My, my, my. When the cat's away…»//

Tone has no bearing on the substance of my critique. My points have been addressing the structure of your claims, not your motives or character.

At this point, the discussion has shifted fully away from analysis and into grievance over framing and tone, which is usually happens when one side of a debate feels their position has collapsed.

It appears my work here is done.

Dear John,

«but to the attempt to generalise that prudence into an explanatory principle about contested domains. That move is epistemic, whether intended or not.»

Avoiding to get one's head in a sick person's bed is 100% sensible prudence and 0% an epistemic claim.
(and I think we already agreed earlier that the patient in bed is sick)

«But that is a personal boundary decision, not a basis for exempting an entire subject from epistemic scrutiny or recasting disengagement as virtue.»

Correct, except that I never suggested the above.
Nothing stops the learned scientists from researching and debating climate among themselves.
Nothing about my disengagement is related to epistemology.

Some fools here have fallen into your trap of discussing climate.
They are not climatologists and have neither your education nor your I.Q. (nor as I suspect but cannot prove, your interdisciplinary support-network).

They are your low-hanging fruit. Big deal: show the natives some shining glass trinkets and fireworks and they will believe you to be god, or at least one of their ancestors.

Beat them at science - and gain their souls.
Other smart crooks achieved the same with cards or dice.

They are blind - and you use it to put stumbling blocks in front of them.

«epistemic standards are not situational hazards that become weapons»

Red herring: you weren't lecturing here to the above fools about epistemic standards, but about climate.
I do not avoid discussing epistemic standards either, should the matter be raised.

«Tone has no bearing on the substance of my critique.»

Certainly not the substance, but tone has bearing on your intentions for using critique.

«grievance over framing and tone, which is usually happens when one side of a debate feels their position has collapsed.»

A common generalisation fallacy, because "usually" is quite different than "always".

Indeed, framing and tone USUALLY say nothing about the objective contents...
except when the discussion is about motives - and my response was precisely in reply to your claim that: «At this point, the discussion has moved away from analysis and into attribution of motives I do not hold.»

Yuyutsu,

Your last reply crosses a line, and overwhelmingly demonstrates what was only starting to become apparent earlier: panic after the collapse of a structural worldview inconsistency.

Accusations of manipulation, exploitation, "gaining souls", or treating others as "fools" are not arguments. They are moralised projections that you have not demonstrated, and I reject them entirely.

I have not insulted other participants, questioned their intelligence, or attributed predatory intent to anyone. I've addressed claims and structures of reasoning in my communication with you, nothing more.

At this point, the discussion has moved fully away from civil analysis and into personal accusation. I have no interest in continuing on those terms.

I though much better of you than this. This is a genuinely shocking and disappointing surprise.

Do better.