[QUOTE=Liberal]
Because an argument should live or die on its own merits.
[/QUOTE]
It is dying, despite the best efforts of the oil and gas lobby and their shills to keep it on life support.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Much better, IMHO, would be to point out that by not endorsing things like higher CAFE standards Rush & Co. are showing that they’re all for wastefullness, which should be the anti-thesis of conservatism. If they drive high mileage vehicles they can then invest the savings into other industries besides the oil companies, and other products besides oil (thus boosting the overall economy). Instead, they advocate doing nothing, thus proving they’re drooling slackjaws, because even if there’s no such thing as AGW, by putting money into things other than oil, they’ll be driving technology forward and opening up new economic possibilites, which is what the conservative movement is supposed to be about.
[/QUOTE]
I hate to break up the love-in, but I don’t see how this is any better of an idea than the fake paper - IMHO, this approach is just a variant on the old “how can a conservative be against conservation?” argument that conservatives have been ignoring for a generation or so.
In contemporary conservatism, there’s nothing wrong with wastefulness. If the free market assigns a low cost to waste, then waste away, they’d say. If you want to drive a high-mileage vehicle because it makes you feel good, then fine - though we’ll probably laugh at you anyway because you’re a liberal hippie granolahead. Besides, there will be enough oil for a long time to come, and when it gets scarce, the market will work its magic then, to bring about new technologies. Regulation is dumb, the market is better.
That’s their retort. You may have a counterargument, but by then they’ve stopped listening to you anyway. This gets you nowhere with anyone.
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
It is dying, despite the best efforts of the oil and gas lobby and their shills to keep it on life support.
[/QUOTE]
That’s fine. But if it’s dying, it isn’t because so-and-so has worked for an oil company.
[QUOTE=Quartz]
???
Then any Christian would do well to avoid anything uttered by St. Paul.
Mr Macintyre’s background is out there in the open. Tell me, of all the scientists who promote AGW, how many are significantly funded by AGW research? Don’t they have a vested interest in promoting AGW? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. But you read both sides with appropriate regard for the authors. And you follow the data.
Anyway, I find the whole business an utter mess. There is simply no evidence at all one way or the other. Neither side has me convinced. People have noted the increase in CO2 levels but correllation does not equate to causation. There is no evidence linking the two. None. So I’ll read ClimateAudit, and I’ll read RealClimate, and I’ll read more. And I’ll continue to question.
[/QUOTE]
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Because an argument should live or die on its own merits.
[/QUOTE]
If it’s an argument from authority (as **brazil84’s ** was–indeed, as all of his are, since he has no knowledge or expertise of his own) then the bona fides of the so-called authority are highly relevant.
[QUOTE=Quartz]
Why don’t you try attacking his arguments instead of trying an ad hominem?
[/QUOTE]
Tell you what, Brazil made a false statement that is a typical talking point of people like Macintyre. I refuted it, he challenged me to show the newer studies and I did provide 3 separate studies and so he avoids the studies I show by linking to Macintyre’s Blog.
I strongly believe the fact that Macintyre is not a climatologist and in the employ of the oil development industry is very relevant in this case.
Further it was Brazil that as usual tried to change the argument.
Jim
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
If it’s an argument from authority (as **brazil84’s ** was–indeed, as all of his are, since he has no knowledge or expertise of his own) then the bona fides of the so-called authority are highly relevant.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed and acknowledged.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Because an argument should live or die on its own merits.
[/QUOTE]
Liberal, would it be relevant to know that a person that was blogging to support the increase of national health care and to transfer administration to private insurance companies actually worked as a consultant for United Health Care?
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Agreed and acknowledged.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, okay nevermind.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
That’s fine. But if it’s dying, it isn’t because so-and-so has worked for an oil company.
[/QUOTE]
Nor because of Al Gore, or George Clooney, or NBC or the New York Times.
I just heard the latest news. Rush Limbaugh has just apologized to his listeners and taken full responsiblity for failing to properly check his facts. He said that because of the value he has always placed on his reputation for accuracy and because he knows that his audience will accept nothing less that the complete truth, he feels that he has no choice except to resign as both a broadcaster and an author.
I’m kidding of course.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I hate to break up the love-in, but I don’t see how this is any better of an idea than the fake paper - IMHO, this approach is just a variant on the old “how can a conservative be against conservation?” argument that conservatives have been ignoring for a generation or so.
[/quote]
Because it’s honest. I realize that the concept of honesty is a bit out of fashion these days, but it does have it’s merits.
Then you can tell them to STFU when they start bitching about government wastefulness. Removing the log from your own eye to get the mote out of your neighbor’s and all that.
In Nevada, the market says that prostitution is legal, yet Rush & Co. are no doubt more than happy to call that “immoral.” If they truly believed in the free market, they’d be willing to legalize prostitution. So their argument is crap.
Well, they’re sure as shit not going to listen to you when you tell them it’s a phoney story about bacteria causing global warming. And the fake story isn’t going to get you anywhere with anyone, either. The people who hate Rush are most likely going to say, “Ha! Told you so!” While his fapping fanboys are going to come up with excuses, or weasel worded defenses, so you’ve gone to a lot of work to accomplish nothing. Much better, IMHO, for you to fight assholes with the truth. You may not accomplish anything, but you’ll still have the moral high ground.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
In Nevada, the market says that prostitution is legal, yet Rush & Co. are no doubt more than happy to call that “immoral.” If they truly believed in the free market, they’d be willing to legalize prostitution. So their argument is crap.
[/QUOTE]
No, here you miss the boat.
Only the most staunch libertarians argue that the market, and only the market, should control our every law. You could argue that because hit men exist, the market must accept murder.
Moreover, if the “market” says the prostitution is legal in Nevada, it’s because people on both sides of the issue were permitted to not only vote, but argue their respective viewpoints. By this measure, “the market” in 49 other states wants to keep prostitution criminalized, so no one’s doing anything against “the market.”
There’s no question that there is a market for prostitution. Social conservatives don’t claim to look to the market for all issues, though - in the same vein, their is clearly a market for pornography, and social conservatives genewrally wish to see it outlawed, notwithstanding. You’re using the failure of a social conservative to live up to a libertarian claim to casll him a hypocrite - that’s simply not accurate.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
No, here you miss the boat.
Only the most staunch libertarians argue that the market, and only the market, should control our every law. You could argue that because hit men exist, the market must accept murder.
Moreover, if the “market” says the prostitution is legal in Nevada, it’s because people on both sides of the issue were permitted to not only vote, but argue their respective viewpoints. By this measure, “the market” in 49 other states wants to keep prostitution criminalized, so no one’s doing anything against “the market.”
There’s no question that there is a market for prostitution. Social conservatives don’t claim to look to the market for all issues, though - in the same vein, their is clearly a market for pornography, and social conservatives genewrally wish to see it outlawed, notwithstanding. You’re using the failure of a social conservative to live up to a libertarian claim to casll him a hypocrite - that’s simply not accurate.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think so. I’m pointing out that even they must admit that some times the market is not always the best way of determining what a society should and should not do. You can also point out that it’s rather stupid of them to bitch about being required to save money. After all, don’t we all want more money? Then there’s the extra taxes that they’re paying to the government, every time they fill up. At least $.40 of the price of a gallon of gas goes to taxes, so driving a gas guzzler is funding the massive government machine that they claim to hate so much.
But Rush doesn’t look like an idiot to the folks who listen to his show. They listen to Rush Limbaugh for gossakes! No one looks like an idiot after a couple of months of doing that.
I spent twenty minutes explaining that there isn’t any evidence of global warming on Mars to a guy who simply dismissed my point as “one opinion” and ignored that fact that I could give him links to the same articles he said supported his bushwah, and show him that the actual research he thinks proves that Mars is getting warmer is not saying that at all. He has no source at all other than . . . wait for it . . Rush Limbaugh.
Tris
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
I don’t think so. I’m pointing out that even they must admit that some times the market is not always the best way of determining what a society should and should not do. You can also point out that it’s rather stupid of them to bitch about being required to save money. After all, don’t we all want more money? Then there’s the extra taxes that they’re paying to the government, every time they fill up. At least $.40 of the price of a gallon of gas goes to taxes, so driving a gas guzzler is funding the massive government machine that they claim to hate so much.
[/QUOTE]
I’m saying that your first point is a strawman: no one in the circles we’re discussing is saying: “The market is always the best way of determining what a society should and should not do.”
It’s late, and I’m tired: is Tuckerfan saying that his approach is more sound because conservatism somhow implies conservationism?
'Cos I don’t think that’s a particularly strongly supportable assertion, on it’s face.
Be nice if it was the case, of course.
And if that misses the point of what Tuckerfan was saying, well, as I said, it’s late, and I’m tired.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
That’s fine. But if it’s dying, it isn’t because so-and-so has worked for an oil company.
[/QUOTE]
But it is indeed at least in small part because so-and-so has been exposed as working for an oil company.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Tell me, where’s this big pot of money that funds pro-AGW research, provided by people with an economic interest in publishing pro-AGW results?
[/QUOTE]
Around here it’s called the taxpayer. They’ve got to keep us believing in it so we’ll keep funding them.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Tell you what, Brazil made a false statement that is a typical talking point of people like Macintyre. I refuted it, he challenged me to show the newer studies and I did provide 3 separate studies and so he avoids the studies I show by linking to Macintyre’s Blog.
[/quote]
I have no problem with that.
Again true, but to attack him for it when his associations are out in the open is another matter. Were he secretly funded, then you’d be spot on, but there is no secret to reveal.