The intolerance when it comes to questioning the rules has not only infiltrated the various realms you've outlined, but also in other areas that I would have thought immune 10 or 12 years ago, such as literature and our expected outlook towards other authors. If you question what a lit mag is doing these days and why they have silly lists of rules that do nothing but demonstrate that they're fully against all the things that everybody is supposed to be against these days, you get shunned and sidelined. No questions allowed, please.
Social media for authors has largely turned into a collective mind set that you must adhere to or you're not welcome. It's very weird, because artists should be open minded, yet many seem to have melded into some sort of group think. Fortunately, not all.
In an age where math is considered racist and colonial, it would appear that there is literally nothing that is safe from the clutches of these new racists.
[...Laurie Rubel, an associate professor of mathematics education, explaining that proponents of “2 + 2 = 4” are grounded “in white, Western mathematics that marginalizes other possible values.”]
Really? Like 5? What about 17? Yes, let's just let everybody decide what 2+2 equals and see how that works out. Maybe they'll get a reduction in their cable bill.
I believe the appropriate internet shortcut expressions here are SMH and FFS.
If you ask a religious person - ‘what would it take to convince you that god does NOT exist?’, they will reply that they cannot be convinced because it is a matter of faith.
If you ask an atheist ‘What would it take to convince you that god exists?’, they will reply, simply: ‘Evidence’.
That’s a rather fundamental difference in approach.
Netflix has an excellent documentary called ‘Behind the Curve’ which is about flat-earthers and it’s a very eye-opening look at the things people believe and why they believe them. We assume that people in the flat earth community lack the skills to understand basic geometry and critical thinking to accept that the earth is a sphere, but that is beside the point for them. Science and evidence are largely irrelevant; what they really get from identifying as flat earthers is the satisfaction of being a contrarian and outsider, along with a community where they can truly be someone, and even be looked up to by other members of the community. We can tirelessly plead with them, showing them what’s evident but this just feeds their confidence that all others are ‘sheep’ and they are part of the exclusive and special group who know the ‘truth’.
Speaking generally, if someone believes that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, then it is not evidence that has led them to this conclusion, but ideology. There is no final piece of evidence that will convince them they are wrong.
Interesting analogy. And I agree that you can't argue against faith with facts.
The thing about AGW is that even though some of what is proclaimed might be facts (much of it is not), they are not meaningful facts when taken in context. For example, July 2023 has been christened the "Hottest July in human history". It's also been said that "humans never experienced a world so hot in modern history ". Are these facts?
I've heard from people clear across Canada, in the UK, the US, and Italy who all say July was a very average year, and actually a bit cooler than normal. Are these people just ideologues that have so much faith that they can't even feel this all-consuming heat that has overtaken the world for the month of July?
Or are they sensible, intelligent beings who observe their surroundings and make a scientific judgement based on what they see, hear, and feel? I already know that arguing with someone who is convinced that the world is melting down before his eyes is not going to be swayed by mere facts.
So now who are the ones using faith when statements like this are made in spite of the facts?
I don’t know what to make of any of that. ‘"Hottest July in human history". It's also been said that "humans never experienced a world so hot in modern history ". Are these facts?’
Yes, as far as the global climate goes, July was the hottest month on record, (and probably the hottest in 120,000 years), and the previous record was set in 2019. Are you saying that the statement: "humans never experienced a world so hot in modern history " is NOT true because every single human didn’t experience it in that way? I don’t think anybody would interpret ‘humans’ to mean ‘every single person on earth’. You’re saying that because specific people in ‘Canada, Europe, Italy’ experienced milder weather, that this somehow invalidates those findings, or casts doubt on them? Are you confusing weather with climate?
You’re not arguing with ‘someone who is convinced that the world is melting down before his eyes’. You’re arguing with someone who bases his judgements on the overwhelming evidence, which is how SHOULD make judgements. Furthermore, I am highly confident that this is how you yourself make the vast majority of judgements on such matters, EXCEPT on this one issue which has been used as a wedge issue by a certain political class.
One interesting aspect about global warming is that the vast majority of the temperature increase has happened in the winter months. That's true where I live as well. So it wouldn't surprise me if that were also true in July of 2023 in the southern hemisphere where they're experiencing winter right now. Normal people don't call this "hot". They say the winters are milder. Using language like this (while perhaps technically true) still amounts to bullshit because NO, people are not "experiencing the hottest world in human history". It is simply not true. Milder winters hardly seem like an emergency to me, in fact I think we should be celebrating with them, don't you?
I know you’re being tongue in cheek when quipping about milder weather in Canada and how we ‘should be celebrating’, but I encourage you to be a little more empathetic to what's happening.
I grew up on the East coast of Australia, in a house in a tidal estuary zone - a beautiful place. We would experience some flooding every year or two, and being Australia, seasonal bushfires too. In the last five years, we had bushfires which were previously classed as ‘once in 100-year’ events, for three consecutive summers. . We had water-bombing planes and helicopters, deaths, and many homes burned down - something I never saw in my first 35 years of life. These events are now considered normal, annual events. In between those bushfires, we had what was previously considered ‘once in 100-year floods’ which also killed people and destroyed homes, also like nothing I had seen in my first 35 years of life, also now considered normal annual events. My family home, like many others, is now practically uninsurable and will eventually need to be abandoned. I’m sure you think that’s hilarious, but we are not unique or unusual. There are more than 20 million people forced to move because of climate change every year and that number increases rapidly as things get worse (or ‘better’, in your view) Of course most of those people are not Australians, they are many of the world’s most desperately poor.
Global average temperatures are higher than they have been in recorded history, and probably higher than they have been in the last 120,000 years. That’s a factual statement based on the available information that we have. I’m sure we can both agree on that. “Humans are experiencing the hottest world in human history” is a statement that logically concurs. Which part of it is false? “Humans” here means the entire population, not an individual. It’s used in the plural, meaning ‘mankind’. It doesn’t matter if you interpret it to mean something different, that’s just what it means. “The hottest world” means the highest global temperatures (on average). Again, it doesn’t matter if you choose to interpret that another way, that’s just what it means. “In human history” would generally refer to the period starting from the invention of writing, so this part is potentially an understatement, as 120,000 years is long before human history.
As I said, the main increase in temperature has been in the winters. If you pour yourself an ice-cold glad of water in the morning and only drink half of it, and then come back to finish it off in the evening after it's been sitting on the table all day long, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't refer to that water as "hot". This is what I mean by "context". That's why this statement is false. Words have meanings for a reason. The purpose of this statement is simply to freak people out, and it fulfills that purpose in spades.
It doesn’t matter if I would refer to it as “hot” or not. We’re talking about what’s true and what isn’t. Did the water get hotter? Yes. Is it the hottest it’s ever been? Yes. Again, it doesn’t matter how we feel about certain things, we’re talking about facts. My nephew is a toddler, a little over two feet in height. Is he “tall”? No, he’s tiny. It’s also true that he’s much taller than he was a few months ago, and that he’s now the tallest he’s ever been. This is how adjectives are used.
We can talk about the politics around climate change and of course there’s plenty to debate regarding the role of governments etc. These are all matters of opinion.
As the famous quote goes: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
The climate change debate should be approached like any other, we should respect and listen to one another, but to simply reject the reality is to avoid this debate in a way that (rather transparently) betrays your position. You know that to admit the facts would render your political position indefensible, which is why you prefer to focus on linguistic absurdities.
This is a shocking failure to employ regular logic. Your ice cube analogy makes no sense. Have you considered that you might be one of these people who get their kicks from being a contrarian, like the flat-earthers? Your ideas are all pretty run-of-the-mill infotainment talking points. Why would I read your blog when I can get the same content watching Fox... with exponentially more pizazz!
The intolerance when it comes to questioning the rules has not only infiltrated the various realms you've outlined, but also in other areas that I would have thought immune 10 or 12 years ago, such as literature and our expected outlook towards other authors. If you question what a lit mag is doing these days and why they have silly lists of rules that do nothing but demonstrate that they're fully against all the things that everybody is supposed to be against these days, you get shunned and sidelined. No questions allowed, please.
Social media for authors has largely turned into a collective mind set that you must adhere to or you're not welcome. It's very weird, because artists should be open minded, yet many seem to have melded into some sort of group think. Fortunately, not all.
Thanks for the article, Ken.
In an age where math is considered racist and colonial, it would appear that there is literally nothing that is safe from the clutches of these new racists.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-radical-teachers-claim-that-saying-224-is-white-supremacy
[...Laurie Rubel, an associate professor of mathematics education, explaining that proponents of “2 + 2 = 4” are grounded “in white, Western mathematics that marginalizes other possible values.”]
Really? Like 5? What about 17? Yes, let's just let everybody decide what 2+2 equals and see how that works out. Maybe they'll get a reduction in their cable bill.
I believe the appropriate internet shortcut expressions here are SMH and FFS.
If you ask a religious person - ‘what would it take to convince you that god does NOT exist?’, they will reply that they cannot be convinced because it is a matter of faith.
If you ask an atheist ‘What would it take to convince you that god exists?’, they will reply, simply: ‘Evidence’.
That’s a rather fundamental difference in approach.
Netflix has an excellent documentary called ‘Behind the Curve’ which is about flat-earthers and it’s a very eye-opening look at the things people believe and why they believe them. We assume that people in the flat earth community lack the skills to understand basic geometry and critical thinking to accept that the earth is a sphere, but that is beside the point for them. Science and evidence are largely irrelevant; what they really get from identifying as flat earthers is the satisfaction of being a contrarian and outsider, along with a community where they can truly be someone, and even be looked up to by other members of the community. We can tirelessly plead with them, showing them what’s evident but this just feeds their confidence that all others are ‘sheep’ and they are part of the exclusive and special group who know the ‘truth’.
Speaking generally, if someone believes that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, then it is not evidence that has led them to this conclusion, but ideology. There is no final piece of evidence that will convince them they are wrong.
Interesting analogy. And I agree that you can't argue against faith with facts.
The thing about AGW is that even though some of what is proclaimed might be facts (much of it is not), they are not meaningful facts when taken in context. For example, July 2023 has been christened the "Hottest July in human history". It's also been said that "humans never experienced a world so hot in modern history ". Are these facts?
I've heard from people clear across Canada, in the UK, the US, and Italy who all say July was a very average year, and actually a bit cooler than normal. Are these people just ideologues that have so much faith that they can't even feel this all-consuming heat that has overtaken the world for the month of July?
Or are they sensible, intelligent beings who observe their surroundings and make a scientific judgement based on what they see, hear, and feel? I already know that arguing with someone who is convinced that the world is melting down before his eyes is not going to be swayed by mere facts.
So now who are the ones using faith when statements like this are made in spite of the facts?
I don’t know what to make of any of that. ‘"Hottest July in human history". It's also been said that "humans never experienced a world so hot in modern history ". Are these facts?’
Yes, as far as the global climate goes, July was the hottest month on record, (and probably the hottest in 120,000 years), and the previous record was set in 2019. Are you saying that the statement: "humans never experienced a world so hot in modern history " is NOT true because every single human didn’t experience it in that way? I don’t think anybody would interpret ‘humans’ to mean ‘every single person on earth’. You’re saying that because specific people in ‘Canada, Europe, Italy’ experienced milder weather, that this somehow invalidates those findings, or casts doubt on them? Are you confusing weather with climate?
You’re not arguing with ‘someone who is convinced that the world is melting down before his eyes’. You’re arguing with someone who bases his judgements on the overwhelming evidence, which is how SHOULD make judgements. Furthermore, I am highly confident that this is how you yourself make the vast majority of judgements on such matters, EXCEPT on this one issue which has been used as a wedge issue by a certain political class.
One interesting aspect about global warming is that the vast majority of the temperature increase has happened in the winter months. That's true where I live as well. So it wouldn't surprise me if that were also true in July of 2023 in the southern hemisphere where they're experiencing winter right now. Normal people don't call this "hot". They say the winters are milder. Using language like this (while perhaps technically true) still amounts to bullshit because NO, people are not "experiencing the hottest world in human history". It is simply not true. Milder winters hardly seem like an emergency to me, in fact I think we should be celebrating with them, don't you?
I know you’re being tongue in cheek when quipping about milder weather in Canada and how we ‘should be celebrating’, but I encourage you to be a little more empathetic to what's happening.
I grew up on the East coast of Australia, in a house in a tidal estuary zone - a beautiful place. We would experience some flooding every year or two, and being Australia, seasonal bushfires too. In the last five years, we had bushfires which were previously classed as ‘once in 100-year’ events, for three consecutive summers. . We had water-bombing planes and helicopters, deaths, and many homes burned down - something I never saw in my first 35 years of life. These events are now considered normal, annual events. In between those bushfires, we had what was previously considered ‘once in 100-year floods’ which also killed people and destroyed homes, also like nothing I had seen in my first 35 years of life, also now considered normal annual events. My family home, like many others, is now practically uninsurable and will eventually need to be abandoned. I’m sure you think that’s hilarious, but we are not unique or unusual. There are more than 20 million people forced to move because of climate change every year and that number increases rapidly as things get worse (or ‘better’, in your view) Of course most of those people are not Australians, they are many of the world’s most desperately poor.
Global average temperatures are higher than they have been in recorded history, and probably higher than they have been in the last 120,000 years. That’s a factual statement based on the available information that we have. I’m sure we can both agree on that. “Humans are experiencing the hottest world in human history” is a statement that logically concurs. Which part of it is false? “Humans” here means the entire population, not an individual. It’s used in the plural, meaning ‘mankind’. It doesn’t matter if you interpret it to mean something different, that’s just what it means. “The hottest world” means the highest global temperatures (on average). Again, it doesn’t matter if you choose to interpret that another way, that’s just what it means. “In human history” would generally refer to the period starting from the invention of writing, so this part is potentially an understatement, as 120,000 years is long before human history.
As I said, the main increase in temperature has been in the winters. If you pour yourself an ice-cold glad of water in the morning and only drink half of it, and then come back to finish it off in the evening after it's been sitting on the table all day long, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't refer to that water as "hot". This is what I mean by "context". That's why this statement is false. Words have meanings for a reason. The purpose of this statement is simply to freak people out, and it fulfills that purpose in spades.
It doesn’t matter if I would refer to it as “hot” or not. We’re talking about what’s true and what isn’t. Did the water get hotter? Yes. Is it the hottest it’s ever been? Yes. Again, it doesn’t matter how we feel about certain things, we’re talking about facts. My nephew is a toddler, a little over two feet in height. Is he “tall”? No, he’s tiny. It’s also true that he’s much taller than he was a few months ago, and that he’s now the tallest he’s ever been. This is how adjectives are used.
We can talk about the politics around climate change and of course there’s plenty to debate regarding the role of governments etc. These are all matters of opinion.
As the famous quote goes: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
The climate change debate should be approached like any other, we should respect and listen to one another, but to simply reject the reality is to avoid this debate in a way that (rather transparently) betrays your position. You know that to admit the facts would render your political position indefensible, which is why you prefer to focus on linguistic absurdities.
This is a shocking failure to employ regular logic. Your ice cube analogy makes no sense. Have you considered that you might be one of these people who get their kicks from being a contrarian, like the flat-earthers? Your ideas are all pretty run-of-the-mill infotainment talking points. Why would I read your blog when I can get the same content watching Fox... with exponentially more pizazz!
Do better, Ken.