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!