• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Religion of Green

Buzz said:
The people who are denying reality here are you and your fellow denialists.
Click to expand...
Wrongheaded as you may be, you are in that post making a different point about a different topic. You are not on-topic for this discussion.
 
istodolez said:
it is a straw man at Gogo suggest that the AGW crowd thinks it can control the weather because the AGW crowd knows that climate is not the same as weather.
Click to expand...
You remain determined to miss or ignore the point. I will not try to reason you out of a position you did not reason yourself into.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Upcoming Biden Administration Calls For Extreme Levels Of Reality Denial
December 18, 2020/ Francis Menton
The Upcoming Biden Administration Calls For Extreme Levels Of Reality Denial
  • As discussed here in a recent post, being a climate “believer” requires basic refusal to deal with the real world as it exists. And no matter how crazy it has been up to now, with the incoming Biden administration, get ready for the make believe to move up to a whole new level.
  • Can we actually change the weather by throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars into windmills and solar panels? That’s what we are all now going to pretend. Kim Strassel sees where it’s going in today’s Wall Street Journal:
  • t’s all about green. Climate will be the driving priority of this White House—Mr. Biden’s make-nice to progressives. He’ll have a climate envoy ( John Kerry ), a climate czar ( Gina McCarthy ), and climate obsessives leading every department ( Janet Yellen, Pete Buttigieg, Jennifer Granholm ).
    [*]So suppose you run a big oil company. . . .

READ MORE
Click to expand...
I wonder how NorthFace could justify in court there decision to not sell gear to oil companies?
Karma, would be that all the plastics makers (Oil Sourced) would not sell to NorthFace.
In reality there are plenty of other sellers.
 
Jack Hays said:
You remain determined to miss or ignore the point. I will not try to reason you out of a position you did not reason yourself into.
Click to expand...

The quote suggested that we in the AGW camp think we can "control the weather" by throwing money and regulations at it. This is the strawman. None of us in the AGW camp believe that weather is the same as climate.

Do you not see that their choice of words was setting up a strawman? Even if it was just "for effect" it plays well to the non-AGW crowd who don't understand that difference and it inherently misrepresents the position of the AGW crowd.

Weather is not climate.

So why did the article suggest we think we can control the weather? Because they literally used the word "WEATHER"?
 
istodolez said:
The quote suggested that we in the AGW camp think we can "control the weather" by throwing money and regulations at it. This is the strawman. None of us in the AGW camp believe that weather is the same as climate.

Do you not see that their choice of words was setting up a strawman? Even if it was just "for effect" it plays well to the non-AGW crowd who don't understand that difference and it inherently misrepresents the position of the AGW crowd.

Weather is not climate.

So why did the article suggest we think we can control the weather? Because they literally used the word "WEATHER"?
Click to expand...
Read the article.
 
Jack Hays said:
Read the article.
Click to expand...

OK. Let's start with this bit:

Can we actually change the weather by throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars into windmills and solar panels? That’s what we are all now going to pretend.
Click to expand...

This is a PATENTLY FALSE CLAIM ABOUT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION OR ANY AGW PROPONENT. We are NOT pretending we can control the weather. Weather is not the same as climate. We are hoping we can ameliorate our impact on climate.

That is a VERY different statement.

Look, I've got NO PROBLEM with the complaints about the regulatory games that will no doubt come to the fore. That IS annoying. Meaningful change has to happen. But it doesn't happen when someone starts off an article by foundationally misrepresenting the position. I'm all for shining a light on stupid offset games like buying tree lots. I doubt that will be the largest issue, but to be fair offsets and cap and trade approaches will likely be market-friendly approaches we can use. We effectively used a cap and trade system for acid rain.

So let's stop getting all hyperventilated when a company tries to do a slick accounting game, make sure it doesn't become systemic and move on.

But first off: you folks on your side of the aisle need to start debating the point using technically correct language, NOT misrepresentations and strawmen.

And the real issue is they started off a reasonable article with a GROSS misrepresentation that belies their agenda and made them look foolish.
 
istodolez said:
OK. Let's start with this bit:



This is a PATENTLY FALSE CLAIM ABOUT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION OR ANY AGW PROPONENT. We are NOT pretending we can control the weather. Weather is not the same as climate. We are hoping we can ameliorate our impact on climate.

That is a VERY different statement.

Look, I've got NO PROBLEM with the complaints about the regulatory games that will no doubt come to the fore. That IS annoying. Meaningful change has to happen. But it doesn't happen when someone starts off an article by foundationally misrepresenting the position. I'm all for shining a light on stupid offset games like buying tree lots. I doubt that will be the largest issue, but to be fair offsets and cap and trade approaches will likely be market-friendly approaches we can use. We effectively used a cap and trade system for acid rain.

So let's stop getting all hyperventilated when a company tries to do a slick accounting game, make sure it doesn't become systemic and move on.

But first off: you folks on your side of the aisle need to start debating the point using technically correct language, NOT misrepresentations and strawmen.

And the real issue is they started off a reasonable article with a GROSS misrepresentation that belies their agenda and made them look foolish.
Click to expand...
I don't have a side of the aisle.
The article is, IMHO, a fair representation of likely real world outcomes.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't have a side of the aisle.
The article is, IMHO, a fair representation of likely real world outcomes.
Click to expand...

You don't have a side of the aisle??? Are you joking?

You do NOTHING but post anti-AGW stuff based almost exclusively on denialist and climate skeptic blogs.

You don't have a side of the aisle?
 
istodolez said:
You don't have a side of the aisle??? Are you joking?

You do NOTHING but post anti-AGW stuff based almost exclusively on denialist and climate skeptic blogs.

You don't have a side of the aisle?
Click to expand...
I just follow the data.
 
Jack Hays said:
I just follow the data.
Click to expand...

So long as you limit your "data" to only denialist and skeptic blogs and studiously avoid the real science.

And may I ask how you "follow the data" if you lack even basic data handling skills or technical expertise?

Just curious.
 
istodolez said:
So long as you limit your "data" to only denialist and skeptic blogs and studiously avoid the real science.

And may I ask how you "follow the data" if you lack even basic data handling skills or technical expertise?

Just curious.
Click to expand...
I manage.
 
Jack Hays said:
I manage.
Click to expand...

If I claimed to be knowledgable in geopolitical intelligence despite freely confessing that I lack any real expertise in this area would you believe me if I say I "manage" to make informed decisions about the legitimacy of some minority opinion related to geopolitics?

I am asking seriously. It is not intended to be an insult, it is an honest question. How rational is my position?
 
istodolez said:
If I claimed to be knowledgable in geopolitical intelligence despite freely confessing that I lack any real expertise in this area would you believe me if I say I "manage" to make informed decisions about the legitimacy of some minority opinion related to geopolitics?

I am asking seriously. It is not intended to be an insult, it is an honest question. How rational is my position?
Click to expand...
There is enough information available to make informed decisions and opinions possible.
 
Jack Hays said:
There is enough information available to make informed decisions and opinions possible.
Click to expand...

There IS, but that does not mean that everyone possesses it.

And when one lacks even basic scientific training how can one claim to manage coming to a conclusion that jettisons the findings of the majority of experts in that field?
 
istodolez said:
There IS, but that does not mean that everyone possesses it.

And when one lacks even basic scientific training how can one claim to manage coming to a conclusion that jettisons the findings of the majority of experts in that field?
Click to expand...
I made my living for years betting against "the majority of experts" in several fields. I was quite successful.
 
Jack Hays said:
I made my living for years betting against "the majority of experts" in several fields. I was quite successful.
Click to expand...

Presumably in an area you had some expertise in.
 
Jack Hays said:
In several, actually.
Click to expand...

Which only makes my point. Topics in which you have some technical understanding it would make sense for you to take a contrarian position. You would have the tools necessary to weigh the relative merit of all the sides of the topic.

But in an area where one has no expertise (not even the basics) it wouldn't make a lot of sense to take a contrarian position. In fact it would be a nearly pure "gamble" rather than an informed position.
 
istodolez said:
Which only makes my point. Topics in which you have some technical understanding it would make sense for you to take a contrarian position. You would have the tools necessary to weigh the relative merit of all the sides of the topic.

But in an area where one has no expertise (not even the basics) it wouldn't make a lot of sense to take a contrarian position. In fact it would be a nearly pure "gamble" rather than an informed position.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, in most cases I picked up expertise on the fly.
 
Jack Hays said:
I just took on the missions I was assigned.
Click to expand...

It must have been hard to buck the experts in an area you were just getting up to speed on. Back in the 70's it wasn't as easy to find confirmation-bias supporting sources of information as easily as it is today and it often required reading the actual technical literature.

Research was much more difficult back in the day. I cut my teeth on literature reviews that involved actually going to the library and pawing through countless journals and then sometimes coming away with information that didn't confirm my initial hopes or impressions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom