[sorcerer-mar]

> I'm smart and paid close enough attention to see through the bullshit

> [relays bullshit]

There was never anything like a scientific consensus on a coming ice age.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bam...

> One way to determine what scientists think is to ask them. This was actually done in 1977 following the severe 1976/77 winter in the eastern United States. "Collectively," the 24 eminent climatologists responding to the survey "tended to anticipate a slight global warming rather than a cooling" (National Defense University Research Directorate 1978).

> we [also] conducted a rigorous literature review of the American Meteorological Society's electronic archives as well as those of Nature and the scholarly journal archive Journal Storage (JSTOR)... The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations.

Here's an alternative explanation: you were duped back then just like you've been duped today, but in the opposite direction than you thought.

[reylas]

Wasn't duped then, not duped now. All I am saying is that I heard people talk about it. You even agree, right? or you would not have said that there was not consensus. That means you at least heard it. Lots of people did and now they trust less because of it.

No where in my statement did I say that I agreed with anything, just that constant "false predictions" causes people to quit listening.

But as you have proved, reading comprehension can be a big part as well.

[sorcerer-mar]

> I am old enough to remember the "ice age" that we were going to enter.

You are remembering a fringe theory amigo. If that's what you expected to happen, it's because you were listening to fringe scientists.

You are continuing to listen to fringe scientists.

Science happens in public, so you will hear all sorts of different theories thrown out. If you are latching onto these and then perceiving divergence from them later on as "creating a loss of trust," that's on you. It means you are incapable of reasoning about the world and is probably something you should try to address yourself instead of externalizing blame.

[reylas]

Dude, I agree! You are missing the point. I know it was a fringe theory. But that is my point. We are talking about losing faith in experts here. Not my beliefs. "Experts" and I use that term loosely, predicted a global cooling. It was not all of them, but when a few cry wolf and the press run with it, then people start dis-trusting "experts" even those that could be correct.

You keep harping on my beliefs, but I have not stated them. I did not believe in an ice age, and I have already stated that I believe in climate change. Why do you keep trying to talk about what I personally believe when you dont even know what they are?

When have I hurt you in the past? Go back to the article on what it is about. I am only trying to add to the discussion on what could be a cause.

[sorcerer-mar]

Okay then, apply the "you" to "one who your comments ring true to."

I understand the dynamic you're pointing to, but it's simply not something that's solvable from the institutional/scientific-community side. We cannot allow institutions to actually control media, nor can we allow science to "go private."

The responsibility, which you and I both should reaffirm, is that individuals need to better manage their own information ecosystem and diet!

Do you have another solution?

[reylas]

sorry, you are missing the point on the first one. I gave my opinion on what is affecting the situation. I used simple examples that did not apply to me. Sorry.

As for solutions? What about ramifications for any media that cannot backup what it says? What about people being held responsible for what they spread?

[sorcerer-mar]

Apologies for my misunderstanding!

> As for solutions? What about ramifications for any media that cannot backup what it says? What about people being held responsible for what they spread?

I mean... effectively not possible in the US (First Amendment). Gnarly situation as the cost of producing bullshit plummets to zero, or goes negative since you can earn money from it, while the cost to find and publish truth continues to rise.