Tactics and Motivation of Global Warming Denial

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Policy advocates should focus on mediation research/spending as opposed to gas taxes and other measures aimed at discouraging consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I never thought I would see the day where you would repeat something I've said. Having a change of anarchocapitalist heart?

[/ QUOTE ]

When was natedogg ever an anarchocapitalist?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Policy advocates should focus on mediation research/spending as opposed to gas taxes and other measures aimed at discouraging consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I never thought I would see the day where you would repeat something I've said. Having a change of anarchocapitalist heart?

[/ QUOTE ]

When was natedogg ever an anarchocapitalist?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a thread where I called him an anarchocapitalist. Natedogg responded that he wasn't an anarchocapitalist and then typed out a rather long list of his political opinions which consisted of abolishing the FDA, abolishing the DEA.... Then one of the more prominent anarchos on this board (I think it was pvn) piped in and said something to the effect of "yes you are an anarchocapitalist, you just don't want to admit it."

It was kind of amusing actually.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes even getting the "hard facts" requires expertise. Otherwise you could order your own x-ray and interpret it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But I expect my expert to be able to point at stuff in the x-ray, and say, "See that dark line through that bone? That's a broken leg. We will fix this by doing a, b and c."

In addition, I have faith in the person telling me this. While they have the self-interest in being paid for my pending operation, I was also referred to them by another doctor, and I know the basics of their regulation and training.

I'm also aware that if they turn out to be wrong, I'll have access to some pretty strong opportunities for legal recourse.

By contrast, none (I think) of these reassurances apply to global warming scientists, most obviously the recourse if they turn out to be wrong.

The 2007 Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery, is a very high profile global warming activist. Two years ago, he predicted that Sydney's dams would be dry, and there would be no water. By contrast, "Sydney's dam catchment area has had its best drenching in years" and they're now around 50% full. How many other industries can have experts wrong by 922,500 megalitres and still be credible? (thanks to Aussie writer Tim Blair for some of the links)

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, sometimes experts are wrong and we do have a right to reject their opinions, but don't think you know more than they do. You don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any individual can only make decisions on the basis of information available to them. It's a lot like poker - you look at your hand, you look at the stack sizes, you make a judgement using the information you have.

Jamie Gold may be standing over my shoulder telling me to do something, but I'm still going to use my own judgement about what to do. If Jamie were to provide reasoning and rationale and evidence to support his claim, I would be more inclined to believe him - but i'm not going to believe him simply because he is a widely recognised "expert".

[Copernicus]

"Jamie Gold ....is a widely recognised "expert". "

At what?

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
"Jamie Gold ....is a widely recognised "expert". "

At what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously my subtle joke about the credibility of climate change scientists wasn't explicit enough.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But is it safe to say that a large majority of climate scientists agree that the evidence supports this statement (defining them as the mainstream position), while a small minority reject it (establishing themselves as the fringe group)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably, but I couldn't care less. For one thing, I would expect that most climate scientists became climate scientists in the first place because they were worried about Global Warming! This makes for a rather biased group. More importantly though, I'm an intelligent adult that can think for myself, so I don't really give a damn about their opinions, I just want the hard facts so I can make my own decision. Believing in something just because someone else believes in it is silly, no matter how qualified you think they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I take it that if you need brain surgery, you'll be performing it on yourself?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

[ QUOTE ]
But only if you decide that you need it, after being presented with the hard facts, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would certainly only get it if I decided that I needed it after being presented with the hard facts.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I was listening to a local call-in show the other night about the GW debate and why Christians are, for the most part, on the denier side of the argument.

Some guy called in and threw up Genesis 1:28 as an example…

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

He made sense when picking it apart. He said (I’m paraphrasing) that if Christians are to believe this passage, then why would they recognize GW? If they are told to subdue the earth, why would they let the earth tell us how to live our lives?

Kind of makes sense, because in an argument as wide spread and divisive as this one, you find most (if not all) Christians on the same side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christians make up what, 90% of the U.S. populace? You claim they mostly agree on this yet it's a divisive issue? Anything 90% of people mostly agree on is pretty much by definition not divisive.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Policy advocates should focus on mediation research/spending as opposed to gas taxes and other measures aimed at discouraging consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I never thought I would see the day where you would repeat something I've said. Having a change of anarchocapitalist heart?

[/ QUOTE ]

When was natedogg ever an anarchocapitalist?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a thread where I called him an anarchocapitalist. Natedogg responded that he wasn't an anarchocapitalist and then typed out a rather long list of his political opinions which consisted of abolishing the FDA, abolishing the DEA.... Then one of the more prominent anarchos on this board (I think it was pvn) piped in and said something to the effect of "yes you are an anarchocapitalist, you just don't want to admit it."

It was kind of amusing actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure you're not confusing "anarchocapitalist" with "libertarian?" I strongly doubt PVN ever called Nate and ACist.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously my subtle joke about the credibility of climate change scientists wasn't explicit enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
I got it and thought it to be quite clever.... Well done. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Policy advocates should focus on mediation research/spending as opposed to gas taxes and other measures aimed at discouraging consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I never thought I would see the day where you would repeat something I've said. Having a change of anarchocapitalist heart?

[/ QUOTE ]

My recollection is that you advocate raising gas taxes and earmarking the money for spending on alternative energy research, the exact opposite of what I stated would be the most effective public policy on carbon emissions.

I'll repeat my main point: If you want to deal with the issue of too much carbon in the atmosphere, a public policy of remediation will be more effective than a public policy of reducing consumption.

Let me also clarify that I'm not actually advocating any public policies. I'm just saying that if you are a person who wants a government response to the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere, you should go with remediation approaches. As long as carbon is cheap and plentiful, you're going to have a lot of carbon production no matter what you do. And once it becomes expensive and in short supply, the problem (of production) just solved itself.

natedogg