Ridingtosunsets ride into the sunset Meta thread of genius

[Dahobbs 17,447]

4 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

The only way coal is less expensive is if you completely ignore the externalities of coal mining/use, which our resident energy expert is doing for some reason. 

If he is in the energy industry at all, it is on the manual labor side. He doesn't deal with anything technical or financial.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

He went to lectures!

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

As it's not my state, I haven't read the law and only am recounting what I heard stated on a local radio program.  

In other words, you were fed a bunch of lies and then came here to spread the lies even further. 

[Ridingtosunset 129]

Without government interference, coal is the cheapest form of energy we have. Other than burning wood, I guess. I'm not even debating the merits of that regulation. Its cheaper to generate power with coal. Period. And China and other countries are going to burn it for decades to come, regardless of US energy policy. Because it's cheap. 

We share the environment and climate with these countries. Any comparison of generation costs have to be done in that context. Apples to oranges if you don't. 

[Beau Vine 54,003]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

He went to lectures!

Nope:

15 hours ago, Ridingtosunset said:

Just watch the youtube clip, heathens. 

 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

2 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

Without government interference, coal is the cheapest form of energy we have. Other than burning wood, I guess. I'm not even debating the merits of that regulation. Its cheaper to generate power with coal. Period. And China and other countries are going to burn it for decades to come, regardless of US energy policy. Because it's cheap. 

We share the environment and climate with these countries. Any comparison of generation costs have to be done in that context. Apples to oranges if you don't. 

I first need to see a YouTube clip to believe this. 

[Captainant 27,465]

Fuck this troll. @Ridingtosunset does not want to have discussion. He wants us to blindly agree with his position which is completely unsupported by facts, evidence, or reality.

This is not a difference of view or opinion as @Bat Guano posited last page - this is a rejection of reality and refusal to actually discuss the salient issue.

[pyrohornIII 4,809]

19 hours ago, elfenix said:

19 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

You're still here, aren't you?

99% he was crowdsourced once

Just once?

54 minutes ago, elfenix said:

 

I...resemble this remark.

16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

If he is in the energy industry at all, it is on the manual labor side. He doesn't deal with anything technical or financial.

I'm thinking landman.

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Fuck this troll. @Ridingtosunset does not want to have discussion. He wants us to blindly agree with his position which is completely unsupported by facts, evidence, or reality.

This is not a difference of view or opinion as @Bat Guano posited last page - this is a rejection of reality and refusal to actually discuss the salient issue.

This right here.  When it comes to actual discussion with logic and facts, pretty much all hat and no cattle.  This thread is dying, even without crowdsourcing him.   

[Dahobbs 17,447]

7 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

Without government interference, coal is the cheapest form of energy we have. Other than burning wood, I guess. I'm not even debating the merits of that regulation. Its cheaper to generate power with coal. Period. And China and other countries are going to burn it for decades to come, regardless of US energy policy. Because it's cheap. 

We share the environment and climate with these countries. Any comparison of generation costs have to be done in that context. Apples to oranges if you don't. 

You have no facts to support this thesis, and it is irrelevant since we don't live in this hypothetical world free of all government regulation. The facts say it is cheaper to generate energy from solar, wind, geothermal, and natural gas than coal. New coal projects aren't going anywhere. Old coal powerplants are being shutdown because they can't compete. Natural gas had already killed coal. Renewables are just throwing dirt on the coffin. Just admit you were wrong. Go on, I know you can do it.

 

 

[SydneyCarton 47,884]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

As it's not my state, I haven't read the law and only am recounting what I heard stated on a local radio program.  

I think you just illustrated part of a real big problem, then. Do you see what that problem is?

And equally important, now that you realize there's been a disconnect with what you believed to be the truth, does it change your opinion on the laws, or do you feel any contrition and that maybe you should re-examine anything?

Edited April 22, 2021 by SydneyCarton

[elfenix 34,171]

*demands to be taken seriously*
*says he wants to have a legitimate discussion*
*posts easily disprovable lies*
*when shown that what he's posting are lies doubles down*
*crowd sourced*
*returns next week under a new username to grievance in DT about how legitimate discussions can't be had in CR*

[Chewbacca 7,730]

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Fuck this troll. @Ridingtosunset does not want to have discussion. He wants us to blindly agree with his position which is completely unsupported by facts, evidence, or reality.

This is not a difference of view or opinion as @Bat Guano posited last page - this is a rejection of reality and refusal to actually discuss the salient issue.

As has been on full display since last November (and honestly, earlier than that), that's today's Republican party.  Reject facts you don't like and make up your own.  Whether we're talking about COVID, the election, January 6 or a host of other issues, I believe most Republicans are not interested in having a fact-based conversation.  I'm not gonna blame it all on Trump, but he sure took it to a new level and that's not a good thing.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I think you just illustrated part of a real big problem, then. Do you see what that problem is?

And equally important, now that you realize there's been a disconnect with what you believed to be the truth, does it change your opinion on the laws, or do you feel any contrition and that maybe you should re-examine anything?

Every new fact causes A reevaluation of every situation.

[SydneyCarton 47,884]

7 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Every new fact causes A reevaluation of every situation.

That's a tremendously vague answer that doesn't really answer the question, specifically as it pertains to you personally. Ideally with some detail, kindly answer the following:

1.) You passed along information very matter of factually, which you believed to be true, which in fact was demonstrably false. You say from a radio program. It's safe to say there are hundreds or thousands or maybe even millions of people who were similarly informed by the same radio program. Can you see how this is potentially a big, big problem?
2.) No knowing that you were incorrect on understanding the law, does it change your feelings on the law? 
3.) This final one is just for me, do you think it's reasonable that a county such as, say, Harris County should be required by law to have the same number of voting places as say a rural county with the population of say 10,000 people?

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by SydneyCarton

[Biff Tannen 45,499]

25 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Fuck this troll. @Ridingtosunset does not want to have discussion. He wants us to blindly agree with his position which is completely unsupported by facts, evidence, or reality.

This is not a difference of view or opinion as @Bat Guano posited last page - this is a rejection of reality and refusal to actually discuss the salient issue.

And therefore a perfect answer to the original question he posed.  Maybe this is just clever performance art.

[Captainant 27,465]

7 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Every new fact causes A reevaluation of every situation.

unless you're Fauci or a scientist right? Then they're no-good anti-freedom poopy heads

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

That's a tremendously vague answer that doesn't really answer the question, specifically as it pertains to you personally. Ideally with some detail, kindly answer the following:

1.) You passed along information very matter of factually, which you believed to be true, which in fact was demonstrably false. You say from a radio program. It's safe to say there are hundreds or thousands or maybe even millions of people who were similarly informed by the same radio program. Can you see how this is potentially a big, big problem?
2.) No knowing that you were incorrect on understanding the law, does it change your feelings on the law? 
3.) This final one is just for me, do you think it's reasonable that a county such as, say, Harris County should be required by law to have the same number of voting places as say a rural county with the population of say 10,000 people?

 

Does giving somebody a bottle of water constitute an election issue?  For me no, so it's not a big deal.  If they're giving bottles of water out and telling them it's courtesy of candidate xxx yeah that's an issue.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

unless you're Fauci or a scientist right? Then they're no-good anti-freedom poopy heads

You should work on those fecal descriptors.  Poopy heads ?

What are you 6 ?  

[SydneyCarton 47,884]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Does giving somebody a bottle of water constitute an election issue?  For me no, so it's not a big deal.  If they're giving bottles of water out and telling them it's courtesy of candidate xxx yeah that's an issue.

So I gave you 3 specific questions, and you answered literally none of them and then instead talked about whether water may or may not be a problem at a polling station., which wasn't a question I asked you. 

This is why certain people might accuse others of being disingenuous in their efforts to "have an honest conversation." Because a large number of folks aren't even making a real attempt. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by SydneyCarton

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

This here, now that we're on page six.

On page 1, after a back and forth for several posts about why is it impossible for Americans to have a discussion and how did we get here, this was the result:

17 hours ago, Ridingtosunset said:

@Onboard 2.0 @David Dennison Please stop that shit. Let's talk about how to fix things and explore if there's room to meet in the middle. 

Saw Climate Change mentioned. Let's discuss. I believe humans have been contributing, but realistic ways to respond to it? Haven't seen that yet. 

And then several folks, including me chimed in. I am no expert in climate science or the energy private sector, but posted the GND text (spoilered) so that it could be referenced if necessary and somehow every single thing seemed to come back to 'green' energy isn't feasible, harms the poor, etc.

I am seeing little textual or concrete factual information that shows a good faith effort to find areas of agreement (like the baby steps countries are taking because they realize this technology will continue to develop) or the question of whether developed nations should assist others, or anything that proves the assumption that those countries such as China will ignore the NDC and just keeping saying coal, coal, baby.

Based on what information, will China ignore this? That is a slippery slope argument that is not constructive to the discussion, nor does it say anything about ways Americans can help reduce our impact, cause you know--we do litter the planet with our garbage and emissions. Or are we supposed to be in a race to the bottom of "Oh well, it's expensive, what's the point?" Why can we not have several energy sectors as we reduce our dependence upon coal and other fossil fuels?

Away from energy, any constructive agreement we can make on the climate's effect upon natural events such as forest fires, hurricanes, the shifting of weather patterns, etc?

 

[washparkhorn 9,935]

3 hours ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Can anyone even describe the conservative ideology anymore? 

No taxes on the wealthy, since they fund the conservative movement. 

The wealthy will use some of the tax breaks on propaganda to convince trumpers they are rich and that commies want to take their money. 

Rinse.

Repeat.

[bolverk 29,402]

@RidingtosunsetNegged gratuitously for lying and trolling throughout this disingenuous abortion of a thread.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,344]

55 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

Without government interference, coal is the cheapest form of energy we have. O

Oh, holy shit.  Not just no but hopelessly, impossibly no and  getting more no by the day.

As of our last analysis, unsubsidized wind projects cost between $28 and $59 per megawatt-hour while coal costs between $54 and $1 59 per megawatt-hour.  This does not factor in the externalities (clean up, damage to the environment, impact on coal-miner's health and the associated costs of treating them, medically speaking) that are so much great with coal than with wind.

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

Ok, I've seen enough

[High Plains Drifter 10,977]

1 hour ago, Ridingtosunset said:

Without government interference, coal is the cheapest form of energy we have. Other than burning wood, I guess. I'm not even debating the merits of that regulation. Its cheaper to generate power with coal. Period.

 

 

So, like in a mad max fury road scenario then, its cheaper to burn coal.

 

 

[RPM 26,229]

18 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Conservative talk radio is how we got here. 

Why do you hate excellence in broadcasting?

[SydneyCarton 47,884]

2 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

So, like in a mad max fury road scenario then, its cheaper to burn coal.

 

 

I mean, in reality, I'd think the cheapest would be a bunch of slaves turning a bunch of wheels, as long as you don't give a shit about human life or general morality, and as long as you don't take into account the cost of food and shelter and water for said slaves. I'm sure he'll be right along to espouse that next.  

[Ridingtosunset 129]

25 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Oh, holy shit.  Not just no but hopelessly, impossibly no and  getting more no by the day.

As of our last analysis, unsubsidized wind projects cost between $28 and $59 per megawatt-hour while coal costs between $54 and $1 59 per megawatt-hour.  This does not factor in the externalities (clean up, damage to the environment, impact on coal-miner's health and the associated costs of treating them, medically speaking) that are so much great with coal than with wind.

 

Does that levelized cost include the cost of backup generation? 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

[Captainant 27,465]

2 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

Does that levelized cost include the cost of backup generation? 

That's what natural gas is for, you dumbfuck. NG also starts up and spins down faster than coal and is much easier to feed fuel into than coal.

Literally NOBODY is saying that we dump all fossil fuels, but you keep fighting that straw man and then claim victimhood when that's pointed out.

I don't know why you're picking this coal hill to die on, it's significantly less efficient than NG or oil burning plants, is slower to react to energy need changes, and has significant negative externalities relative to other fossil fuel energy sources.

[wildcat09 29,258]

14 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

Does that levelized cost include the cost of backup generation? 

Jesus christ just admit you were fucking wrong.

[Ridingtosunset 129]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

That's what natural gas is for, you dumbfuck. NG also starts up and spins down faster than coal and is much easier to feed fuel into than coal.

Literally NOBODY is saying that we dump all fossil fuels, but you keep fighting that straw man and then claim victimhood when that's pointed out.

I don't know why you're picking this coal hill to die on, it's significantly less efficient than NG or oil burning plants, is slower to react to energy need changes, and has significant negative externalities relative to other fossil fuel energy sources.

This hill is not about coal. It's about applying real world costs to the calculation of power generation from renewables. If wind and solar require back up generation, then that is an added cost to those sources. The EIA doesn't include that in the calculations to my knowledge. 

Watch what China does. They will continue to build coal plants. Why would they do that if solar and wind were cheaper? 

Despite Pledges to Cut Emissions, China Goes on a Coal Spree - Yale E360

[Dahobbs 17,447]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

That's a tremendously vague answer that doesn't really answer the question, specifically as it pertains to you personally. Ideally with some detail, kindly answer the following:

1.) You passed along information very matter of factually, which you believed to be true, which in fact was demonstrably false. You say from a radio program. It's safe to say there are hundreds or thousands or maybe even millions of people who were similarly informed by the same radio program. Can you see how this is potentially a big, big problem?
2.) No knowing that you were incorrect on understanding the law, does it change your feelings on the law? 
3.) This final one is just for me, do you think it's reasonable that a county such as, say, Harris County should be required by law to have the same number of voting places as say a rural county with the population of say 10,000 people?

 

Yeah, this is the thing that needs to be addressed. Despite doing no independent research, @Onboard 2.0 felt comfortable parroting an assertion he heard on the radio. Presumably, he did so because he felt he could trust the source. But here, the relevant fact is easily available to anyone with a computer. And when presented with evidence that his trusted radio program blatantly lied to him, the best he can do is a very reluctant mea culpa. What should be happening is  @Onboard 2.0 re-evaluating the trust worthiness of his radio program. And he should be re-evaluating other information he has gotten from that source.  But none of that is apparent. 

Why are people like @Onboard 2.0 so willing to speak with certainty on subjects they have no real knowledge of? Why do people like @Onboard 2.0 not try and educate themselves? Why do they insist on embracing sources that have proven time and again to be unreliable? Is it simply comfort? Laziness? And why won't he answer your questions directly? Until we can address this problem, I don't see an easy way to us to reembrace civil discussion.  

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, this is the thing that needs to be addressed. Despite doing no independent research, @Onboard 2.0 felt comfortable parroting an assertion he heard on the radio. Presumably, he did so because he felt he could trust the source. But here, the relevant fact is easily available to anyone with a computer. And when presented with evidence that his trusted radio program blatantly lied to him, the best he can do is a very reluctant mea culpa. What should be happening is  @Onboard 2.0 re-evaluating the trust worthiness of his radio program. And he should be re-evaluating other information he has gotten from that source.  But none of that is apparent. 

Why are people like @Onboard 2.0 so willing to speak with certainty on subjects they have no real knowledge of? Why do people like @Onboard 2.0 not try and educate themselves? Why do they insist on embracing sources that have proven time and again to be unreliable? Is it simply comfort? Laziness? And why won't he answer your questions directly? Until we can address this problem, I don't see an easy way to us to reembrace civil discussion.  

WTF are you talking about. I responded to a post with info I heard on a local radio program.  I made the assumption that the commentator was speaking accurately about the subject.  That was shown to be incorrect. 

I said I was wrong. There wasn't a fucking thing reluctant about it. My ego doesn't hinge on being incorrect about a bottle of water.  

Must be tough for you to be perfect. You never get anything wrong.  

[Dahobbs 17,447]

34 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

This hill is not about coal. It's about applying real world costs to the calculation of power generation from renewables. If wind and solar require back up generation, then that is an added cost to those sources. The EIA doesn't include that in the calculations to my knowledge. 

Watch what China does. They will continue to build coal plants. Why would they do that if solar and wind were cheaper? 

Despite Pledges to Cut Emissions, China Goes on a Coal Spree - Yale E360

China is building more renewable energy as well. Yes, it will be relying on its massive coal supplies and existing powerplants for some time. But, it is quickly pivoting to renewables and is far and away the leader in that space. 

None of this means coal is cheaper in the US. It isn't. Your arguments about "back up" power are non-sensical.

(1) Every plant needs backup power in case it goes down.

(2) You seem to be envisioning a scenario no one is discussing right now, which is 100% reliance on renewable energy. If we were trying to do that, renewables would be more expensive as it would either require large scale storage or a very interconnected grid and an oversupply of capacity. 

Fortunately, we don't need to jump to (2). Renewable energy is cheaper so long as it is a part of existing grid. Solar in particular reliably provides power during peak hours, reducing the total needed fossil fuel/nuclear contribution. That's a good thing. It is certainly possible that a net 0 carbon power grid may actually be reached more efficiently by maintaining a significant number of natural gas plants. There was actually a recent study on this:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/new-study-a-zero-emissions-us-is-now-pretty-cheap/ 

Quote

 

Many takes on a carbon-neutral grid assume that periods of low solar and wind production will be smoothed over with gas generators using carbon capture and storage. But this analysis suggests that any remaining gas plants simply won't run often enough to provide an economic justification for the carbon-capture hardware. Similar things are true with batteries; the periods when demand outstrips capacity are expected to be so rare that it doesn't make economic sense to build that many batteries to cover them.

Instead, gas plants will simply dump their carbon emissions into the sky. This ends up being carbon neutral because we'll still need some liquid fuels for things like air travel, and we'll make these with carbon pulled back out of the atmosphere, combined with hydrogen produced from water during periods of excess renewable supply. The researchers estimate that we would require 3,500 terawatts just to make enough hydrogen—roughly the same amount of electricity we make currently.

* * *

Going entirely renewable actually forces much higher levels of carbon capture to ensure that fuel needs could be met without any fossil fuels. And going net negative involves a variety of carbon capture and biofuels, with substantial land use as a result of the latter.

 

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[SydneyCarton 47,884]

10 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

WTF are you talking about. I responded to a post with info I heard on a local radio program.  I made the assumption that the commentator was speaking accurately about the subject.  That was shown to be incorrect. 

I said I was wrong. There wasn't a fucking thing reluctant about it. My ego doesn't hinge on being incorrect about a bottle of water.  

Must be tough for you to be perfect. You never get anything wrong.  

He's talking, directly, about my follow up post, where I asked you 3 specific questions and you answered none of them. It was a reply to your post, I'm sure you can find it in your notifications and revisit, on the off chance you missed it. It was after your post about the local radio. 

Go ahead, I'll wait. You know what, fuck it. Here's the direct link, if you want to take another shot at answering them:
 

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by SydneyCarton

[Chewbacca 7,730]

32 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Jesus christ just admit you were fucking wrong.

He just wants to have an honest conversation, guys.

[Dahobbs 17,447]

13 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

WTF are you talking about. I responded to a post with info I heard on a local radio program.  I made the assumption that the commentator was speaking accurately about the subject.  That was shown to be incorrect. 

I said I was wrong. There wasn't a fucking thing reluctant about it. My ego doesn't hinge on being incorrect about a bottle of water.  

Must be tough for you to be perfect. You never get anything wrong.  

Why can't you address the bigger questions? Do you not see why your feeling comfortable parroting a demonstrably incorrect talking point is part of a much larger problem? Acknowledging that you were wrong in this instance is an important first step. The next step is addressing the root cause of why you had so much certainty in an easily disproven falsehood and taking action to minimize it in the future. So, what have you done? What lessons have you learned? 

It isn't just about you. It is about the millions of others who do the same thing. We need to address this disconnect from reality or we are not going to progress. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Chewbacca 7,730]

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

WTF are you talking about. I responded to a post with info I heard on a local radio program.  I made the assumption that the commentator was speaking accurately about the subject.  That was shown to be incorrect.  

With all the blatant lies being spouted on conservative TV and radio these days, that's not an assumption you should ever make again.

[pyrohornIII 4,809]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

WTF are you talking about. I responded to a post with info I heard on a local radio program.  I made the assumption that the commentator was speaking accurately about the subject.  That was shown to be incorrect. 

I said I was wrong. There wasn't a fucking thing reluctant about it. My ego doesn't hinge on being incorrect about a bottle of water.  

Must be tough for you to be perfect. You never get anything wrong.  

Do you now question the veracity of things you hear on that program?  Would you still feel confident in using their information as fact?   Have you reached out and asked that program why they are broadcasting misleading information?    

I'm pretty sure that's where DaHobbs and others are coming from.   If I quoted a source with a "fact" like you did and then was later embarrassed to find out that source was bogus, I'm pretty sure I'd be sore at that source, and not trust them as readily moving forward.

Apologizing is a good first start, but I think we are all interested in how it affects your thought process when your sources are shown to be not quite factual.

And that is a big problem, because now a whole lot of people tend to use "fake news" as an escape clause.  They don't recognize truth and fact anymore.   How do you discuss with people with whom you have no central touchstone of truth?

[wildcat09 29,258]

13 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

WTF are you talking about. I responded to a post with info I heard on a local radio program.  I made the assumption that the commentator was speaking accurately about the subject.  That was shown to be incorrect. 

I said I was wrong. There wasn't a fucking thing reluctant about it. My ego doesn't hinge on being incorrect about a bottle of water.  

Must be tough for you to be perfect. You never get anything wrong.  

It's not like this was about something brand new. It was about something we've all been talking about here for a couple of months now. Did you just assume we were all lying?

[washparkhorn 9,935]

Strategically manufactured ignorance. Agnotology.

Quote

“We live in a world of radical ignorance, and the marvel is that any kind of truth cuts through the noise,” says Proctor. Even though knowledge is ‘accessible’, it does not mean it is accessed, he warns.

“Although for most things this is trivial – like, for example, the boiling point of mercury – but for bigger questions of political and philosophical import, the knowledge people have often comes from faith or tradition, or propaganda, more than anywhere else.”

Spoiler

How do people or companies with vested interests spread ignorance and obfuscate knowledge? 

 
In 1979, a secret memo from the tobacco industry was revealed to the public. Called the Smoking and Health Proposal, and written a decade earlier by the Brown & Williamson tobacco company, it revealed many of the tactics employed by big tobacco to counter “anti-cigarette forces”.

In one of the paper’s most revealing sections, it looks at how to market cigarettes to the mass public: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”

This revelation piqued the interest of Robert Proctor, a science historian from Stanford University, who started delving into the practices of tobacco firms and how they had spread confusion about whether smoking caused cancer.

Proctor had found that the cigarette industry did not want consumers to know the harms of its product, and it spent billions obscuring the facts of the health effects of smoking. This search led him to create a word for the study of deliberate propagation of ignorance: agnotology.

Agnotology is the study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit, usually to sell a product or win favour
It comes from agnosis, the neoclassical Greek word for ignorance or ‘not knowing’, and ontology, the branch of metaphysics which deals with the nature of being. Agnotology is the study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit, usually to sell a product or win favour.

“I was exploring how powerful industries could promote ignorance to sell their wares. Ignorance is power… and agnotology is about the deliberate creation of ignorance.

“In looking into agnotology, I discovered the secret world of classified science, and thought historians should be giving this more attention.”

The 1969 memo and the tactics used by the tobacco industry became the perfect example of agnotology, Proctor says. “Ignorance is not just the not-yet-known, it’s also a political ploy, a deliberate creation by powerful agents who want you ‘not to know’.”

To help him in his search, Proctor enlisted the help of UC Berkeley linguist Iain Boal, and together they came up with the term – the neologism was coined in 1995, although much of Proctor’s analysis of the phenomenon had occurred in the previous decades.

Balancing act

Agnotology is as important today as it was back when Proctor studied the tobacco industry’s obfuscation of facts about cancer and smoking. For example, politically motivated doubt was sown over US President Barack Obama’s nationality for many months by opponents until he revealed his birth certificate in 2011. In another case, some political commentators in Australia attempted to stoke panic by likening the country’s credit rating to that of Greece, despite readily available public information from ratings agencies showing the two economies are very different.

Proctor explains that ignorance can often be propagated under the guise of balanced debate. For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion. This was behind how tobacco firms used science to make their products look harmless, and is used today by climate change deniers to argue against the scientific evidence.

“This ‘balance routine’ has allowed the cigarette men, or climate deniers today, to claim that there are two sides to every story, that ‘experts disagree’ – creating a false picture of the truth, hence ignorance.”

We live in a world of radical ignorance – Robert Proctor. For example, says Proctor, many of the studies linking carcinogens in tobacco were conducted in mice initially, and the tobacco industry responded by saying that studies into mice did not mean that people were at risk, despite adverse health outcomes in many smokers.

A new era of ignorance

“We live in a world of radical ignorance, and the marvel is that any kind of truth cuts through the noise,” says Proctor. Even though knowledge is ‘accessible’, it does not mean it is accessed, he warns.

“Although for most things this is trivial – like, for example, the boiling point of mercury – but for bigger questions of political and philosophical import, the knowledge people have often comes from faith or tradition, or propaganda, more than anywhere else.”

Proctor found that ignorance spreads when firstly, many people do not understand a concept or fact and secondly, when special interest groups – like a commercial firm or a political group – then work hard to create confusion about an issue. In the case of ignorance about tobacco and climate change, a scientifically illiterate society will probably be more susceptible to the tactics used by those wishing to confuse and cloud the truth.

Consider climate change as an example. “The fight is not just over the existence of climate change, it’s over whether God has created the Earth for us to exploit, whether government has the right to regulate industry, whether environmentalists should be empowered, and so on. It’s not just about the facts, it’s about what is imagined to flow from and into such facts,” says Proctor.

Making up our own minds

Another academic studying ignorance is David Dunning, from Cornell University. Dunning warns that the internet is helping propagate ignorance – it is a place where everyone has a chance to be their own expert, he says, which makes them prey for powerful interests wishing to deliberately spread ignorance.

My worry is not that we are losing the ability to make up our own minds, but that it’s becoming too easy to do so – David Dunning "While some smart people will profit from all the information now just a click away, many will be misled into a false sense of expertise. My worry is not that we are losing the ability to make up our own minds, but that it’s becoming too easy to do so. We should consult with others much more than we imagine. Other people may be imperfect as well, but often their opinions go a long way toward correcting our own imperfections, as our own imperfect expertise helps to correct their errors,” warns Dunning.

Dunning and Proctor also warn that the willful spread of ignorance is rampant throughout the US presidential primaries on both sides of the political spectrum.

“Donald Trump is the obvious current example in the US, suggesting easy solutions to followers that are either unworkable or unconstitutional,” says Dunning.

So while agnotology may have had its origins in the heyday of the tobacco industry, today the need for both a word and the study of human ignorance is as strong as ever.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Just now, pyrohornIII said:

Do you now question the veracity of things you hear on that program?  Would you still feel confident in using their information as fact?   Have you reached out and asked that program why they are broadcasting misleading information?    

I'm pretty sure that's where DaHobbs and others are coming from.   If I quoted a source with a "fact" like you did and then was later embarrassed to find out that source was bogus, I'm pretty sure I'd be sore at that source, and not trust them as readily moving forward.

Apologizing is a good first start, but I think we are all interested in how it affects your thought process when your sources are shown to be not quite factual.

And that is a big problem, because now a whole lot of people tend to use "fake news" as an escape clause.  They don't recognize truth and fact anymore.   How do you discuss with people with whom you have no central touchstone of truth?

So you have a news source that's 100% correct all the time ?  If you have one please send it along to me. It would be the first I the history of news organizations.  No news organizations are correct all the time. In fact numerous 3 letter networks and news orgs been shown time and time again to edit their "news" to create their own facts.

 I state I was wrong, and the inquisition is still going on.  

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's not like this was about something brand new. It was about something we've all been talking about here for a couple of months now. Did you just assume we were all lying?

I haven't been following any threads about that particular subject on this board.

[SydneyCarton 47,884]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

So you have a news source that's 100% correct all the time ?  If you have one please send it along to me. It would be the first I the history of news organizations.  No news organizations are correct all the time. In fact numerous 3 letter networks and news orgs been shown time and time again to edit their "news" to create their own facts.

 I state I was wrong, and the inquisition is still going on.  

That's because you refuse, very blatantly and obviously at this point, not to answer basic and direct questions which I have very politely asked you. Instead your deflecting with bullshit like "well, lots of news organizations make mistakes." Yeah, and usually they're called to account for those mistakes and issue retractions. Has your radio station issued a retraction? 

At this point, it's clear to everyone that your  behavior is disingenuous, and you aren't interested in learning, having a real dialog, or doing anything that would upset your predisposed opinions. You've had multiple opportunities in this thread, on this fucking PAGE, and you're well past 3 strikes. So why should anyone take you seriously?

[Dahobbs 17,447]

12 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

So you have a news source that's 100% correct all the time ?  If you have one please send it along to me. It would be the first I the history of news organizations.  No news organizations are correct all the time. In fact numerous 3 letter networks and news orgs been shown time and time again to edit their "news" to create their own facts.

 I state I was wrong, and the inquisition is still going on.  

But you aren't willing to learn from it. Instead, you double down on the same source. You say, yeah, it was wrong, but everyone else is wrong too. It is honestly frustrating. Later today, or tomorrow, or next week, you'll do the exact same thing. You'll parrot what you heard from the same source with certainty and without doing any factual checking. So will millions of others. And in doing so they'll convince themselves they are right. That their "truth" is an opinion we should respect. The reality is that you're being fed lies. And despite being shown that they are lies, you'll happily take the next gulp. You've grown fat and happy with your lies. They comfort you and give you purpose. And you fear the alternative because it requires ingesting ideas that are new or that are an anathema to the identity you've created yourself.  

Edited April 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[VRHorn 718]

4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

That's because you refuse, very blatantly and obviously at this point, not to answer basic and direct questions which I have very politely asked you. Instead your deflecting with bullshit like "well, lots of news organizations make mistakes." Yeah, and usually they're called to account for those mistakes and issue retractions. Has your radio station issued a retraction? 

At this point, it's clear to everyone that your  behavior is disingenuous, and you aren't interested in learning, having a real dialog, or doing anything that would upset your predisposed opinions. You've had multiple opportunities in this thread, on this fucking PAGE, and you're well past 3 strikes. So why should anyone take you seriously?

Well, shit man, he apologized. Literally, there is nothing else he can do at this point. Stop being so mean.

[DDD Dad 14,252]

I'm not going to waste an hour of my life poring over the 6 pages of this thread; can someone tell me whose sock ridingtosunset is (or is about to be was)?  Is it Fozzz?

Edited April 22, 2021 by DDD Dad

[pyrohornIII 4,809]

6 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

So you have a news source that's 100% correct all the time ?  If you have one please send it along to me. It would be the first I the history of news organizations.  No news organizations are correct all the time. In fact numerous 3 letter networks and news orgs been shown time and time again to edit their "news" to create their own facts.

 I state I was wrong, and the inquisition is still going on.  

I said in the second paragraph I would question that source and be leery to use them again.  I do not believe any source is 100% correct.

But you answered my question about how you would react.  You went to the bothsiderism play.  'Most news sources (I assume mainstream media) lie.  So me believing my own source, even when I know they are lying is perfectly fine.'

There was no inquisition there.  I was truly interested in your mindset and logic when you were confronted with such a source.  You answered.  

This is why this thread is here.   To have an open discussion.  My questions weren't vindictive.  They were sincere.   But anyway.  

[Beau Vine 54,003]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

I'm not going to waste an hour of my life poring over the 6 pages of this thread; can someone tell me whose sock ridingtosunset is (or is about to be was)?

Rocko.