No, no it’s not. Have you got an actual point or are you just disagreeing with me for the sheer hell of it?
Then present it. Unfortunately, you can’t, because there is no experimental and falsifiable evidence.
It’s clear that the climate has changed, but to say that humanity is responsible is a big claim. It may well be true, but the actual evidence, that final link, is just not there. And no, GIGOBuster’s link is not such evidence.
But you’re doing it wrong. The way to talk to conservatives and others - like me - who do not buy into it about climate change is to admit that yes, the degree of evidence they require is indeed not there but point out the facts and proceed from there. For example: pollution is bad, CO2 emissions are pollution and cause ocean acidification, with resultant effects on marine ecosystems; so isn’t it a good idea to reduce CO2 emissions from that regard?
(Yes, shock, horror, I am in favour of reducing CO2 emissions.)
Did not need to read any more of your post than the 1st sentence as that explained your views clearly enough. Your disdain and contempt of the above mentioned groups is clear. You don’t want a dialog to discuss, you wish to lecture those you view as beneath you.
Suppose I were to tell you that I was able to get close enough to Scott Pruitt to inject him with a highly effective but short-lived truth serum, and I learned the following:
(a) he believes in the reality of anthropomorphic global warming
(b) he believes the costs businesses would incur to sharply reduce carbon emissions would be too high to justify the benefits
© he believes if he were to publicly admit to the reality of anthropomorphic global warming, political opponents would leverage that admission to force passage of measures that would sharply reduce carbon emissions
In summary, we learn he’s not denying the truth of anthropomorphic global warming; he’s lying to avoid a politically undesirable outcome which he genuinely believes is not cost-benefit efficient either.
What would that change?
-
Most people do LISTEN to each other on major issues. How else do they know which snotty comment to make in response?
-
It is a VERY bad fad, every time Self Righteousness becomes popular, no matter who is indulging in it.
The way I like to put it is, that no one should be allowed to captain a ship of state, who proclaims that the ship will sail on just fine, if we let one half of it sink to the bottom of the ocean.
You would not be more wrong if we swapped out global warming for evolution, and your demand would be considerably more reasonable. This is not the thread for remedial classes on what the rest of the world is already on board with. If you honestly want to see the evidence that the earth is warming, start a thread on that, and I and I’m sure many others will gladly help educate you.
You seem to agree that man has raised CO2 levels. Do you dispute that the greenhouse effect can be quantified?
Or are you just demanding a high standard of “proof”? Is Darwin’s Theory proven true? Plate tectonics? O.J. Simpson’s murder of Nicole? Jesus Christ’s existence? (I ask not to snark, just to get a handle on what level of “proof” you consider sufficient.)
No, let’s ask you what you would conclude in the hypothetical.
Is Pruitt’s lying admirable? Shielding the American people from a truth to seek a higher good?
Many GOP’pers disbelieve or pretend to disbelieve in climate change. Congressman Whatsisname on the Science Committee, for example, who refutes sea-level rise with ice cubes in a water glass. In your model are all these GOP’pers just pretending to be stupid? Are they lying as a public service? Is your admiration for such lying part of the reason you’re a conservative?
Since I am convinced that anthropomorphic global warming is verifiable and real, it’s clear to me that GOP politicians are at best uninformed and at worst lying. When they are lying, my best guess is they are doing it with the motive that they are serving some sort of higher truth; that in their minds, they are acting in the best interests of the country as they see it.
In my view, this is a rejection of the fundamental principle of representative democracy, which vests sovereignty in"We, The People." When an elected representative decides to lie because the truth will cause the wrong decision to happen, he’s violated the covenant that should exist between the body politic and the people it selects to serve as legislators.
That’s my answer.
To the extent that you’re asking how I can be a conservative when conservative politicians lie, it’s because I don’t see that behavior limited to conservatives.
Well, I have trouble arguing with that, Bricker.
However, pointing out that both sides do it, especially when that’s a justification for supporting one side, is a pretty large mistake. Far better, ethically, to point out how both sides are lying, advocate for truth, and allow the actual marketplace of ideas to examine things properly. To support one side, even with an internal acknowledgement that side is unethical, is to become complicit with their end-justifies-the-means actions. That’s never - in my view - worth doing.
It’s always worth pointing out that each side deserves to be hung and it’s time to start over.
Dial that back, please. We work toward civil discussion here in Great Debates. Don’t undermine that work.
I agree with your principle. I’d like to say I wholly agree but then I think about Franklin Roosevelt.
It’s pretty clear President Roosevelt told a lot of lies to the American people from 1939 to 1941. He felt that Germany was a growing danger to the United States and America had to take actions against Germany. But the American people were still widely isolationist. So Roosevelt did a lot of things covertly that he couldn’t have gotten support for if he had done them openly.
History proved Roosevelt had been right. Germany did end up declaring war on the United States. Most people now look back and think Roosevelt had done the right things.
So is it possible for a politician to be justified in saying to himself “I was elected to lead the people not follow them. It’s unfortunate but they’re just wrong on this issue and they don’t see it. I know what’s right but the situation doesn’t give me the time to educate the public around to also knowing what’s right. I have to act now to do what’s right in a timely fashion and in order to do that, I’m going to have to lie to the people who elected me. But I’m doing what’s right and I’m doing what’s good for the people and I trust that eventually they’ll come around to seeing that. It would be immoral for me to do something which would harm the people who elected me just because they mistakenly think it would benefit them.”
I have trouble with this position. We have good reason to think that many of these positions are bought and paid for by lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry. But lets look at those who legitimately take the “higher truth” position. First, they are still liars because they continue to publicly deny facts, or at least promote policies that enable denial if facts. Second, they are short sighted and are actually acting contrary to the best interest of those they represent and humanity in general. So I don’t see how the blinkered view position of, ‘let’s do nothing because it’s difficult/expensive’ is defensible because there is no “higher truth” in it.
Health insurance/universal coverage/single payer/healthcare.
We have proof, based on hundreds of thousands of claims and patients, to demonstrate that consistent and affordable access to healthcare, treatment, and medication is the best way to treat people and to save money in the long run. Outcomes are always better across the board in groups with affordable coverage and in groups with universal coverage.
We pay far more than other countries and still have bad outcomes in nearly every measure.
All their talk about “competition” and “tax credits” and so on misses the point that the price of entry into current health insurance is often out of reach for too many people, and
obfuscates the real issue that human beings need health care and treatment.
The problem is with b. For one, there are mitigating efforts that can be done that will not hurt the economy, and in fact, many will actually create jobs on net, so, while it is important to take a balanced approach towards CO2 mitigation, it is also very important that some approach be made with intent. Also, very short sighted. If the economy doesn’t take a 2% hit this decade because we didn’t spend the resources needed to mitigate it, but in a couple of decades, we have massive drought, famine, and war due to the effects, then he made a terrible choice.
I would say that they are acting in the best interests of pandering to their ignorant bases to get re-elected, the best (especially long term[and by long term, I mean longer than a congressional term])interests of the country are lucky if they make it in the top ten of their priorities.
Except…that there’s no risk pool for something like 65% of the employer group insured. Most employer groups are self-funded (or self-insured), meaning no risk pool. The insurance company provides access to a network of providers, a pharmacy benefit manager, and claims processing/review administrative work. The employer pays all claim costs directly.
Which brings up two points:
First, why are premium costs going up if the insurer is only acting as an administrator, and the risk pool doesn’t enter into it?
Second, this has dangerous potential. Want to cut costs? Bob in Accounting – his wife has MS. Susan in Marketing has a high-risk pregnancy (consistently the highest-dollar claims in employer groups). And so on. Have a reduction in force, remove enough people to show that health status didn’t enter into it, and voila, savings!
Shifting the goalposts, I see. No, the claim is that human-produced CO2 - specifically the burning of fossil fuels - has caused the warming we have seen. If you have experimental and falsifiable evidence of that then present it. Otherwise take the advice I provided upthread.
Of course it is a bigger problem that all can see that you avoided the cite already made in post #37 it is evidence that can be falsified indeed so, so much for your declaration.
It is even more underwhelming when one takes into account that he comes from the UK and even the conservative government of Theresa May is not giving him much expected support (I have read reports that the smaller -but influential in the tabloid press- British climate deniers also supported Brexit in the hope that the coming government would also abandon any emissions controls made with the EU group).
AFAIK there was a lot of grumbling that climate change efforts in the UK were being tossed away, but the latest news still shows that the government there is still committed to many of the changes.
While “hardening of the philosophical arteries” is a basic fact of the human condition, I would ask which group is more susceptible to it: The one for which resistance to change is a defining, if indeed not the defining characteristic or the one whose defining characteristic is a belief in progress.