3 ms·

Huh? Politics are never about facts not sure where you get that idea about it's about perception, power etc. Not about facts. Thats why it's called the art of t

Huh? Politics are never about facts not sure where you get that idea about it's about perception, power etc. Not about facts. Thats why it's called the art of the possible. You prove my very point. Your believe that the priority should be about how we should fight it. Thats your prioritization. You don't even have to be a climate sceptic to come up with another perspective which is. You don't need to worry about that, technology will solve it. Agreeing on the basic facts has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Because even the basic facts aren't what drives politics decision making.

mikeash 10y ago
I said that the climate change debate should be about how much effort to put into fighting it. "Zero" is a perfectly acceptable answer to that question (albeit one I disagree with). The problem isn't that people are arguing that "zero" is the correct answer to the question. The problem is that we lack a shared basis of facts, to the extent that about half of the electorate will say that the question itself is based on false assumptions.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  The problem is that even when it comes to climate it's not even sure people accept that it's an important fact to worry about. Thats what I am trying to say. There is not right prioritization here. Only the one people make. Thats democracy.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I agree with your second paragraph. There is no right prioritization, only different ones. But there are right facts. And if the basis of someone's prioritization is "climate change isn't even happening, so of course we shouldn't do anything to fight it" then I think it's reasonable to call that position uninformed. The problem isn't that some people think it's unimportant. The problem is that many people think it's not even real.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      Of course there are right facts, the point is that there are right facts on both sides of the argument. I.e. you can be as educated liberal as you want that does not mean that the facts you care about are more important than the facts som uneducated trump supporter cares about.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        My point is that there aren't right facts on both sides of many of the arguments we currently fight.

mikeash 10y ago

I said that the climate change debate should be about how much effort to put into fighting it. "Zero" is a perfectly acceptable answer to that question (albeit one I disagree with). The problem isn't that people are arguing that "zero" is the correct answer to the question. The problem is that we lack a shared basis of facts, to the extent that about half of the electorate will say that the question itself is based on false assumptions.

ThomPete 10y ago
The problem is that even when it comes to climate it's not even sure people accept that it's an important fact to worry about. Thats what I am trying to say. There is not right prioritization here. Only the one people make. Thats democracy.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I agree with your second paragraph. There is no right prioritization, only different ones. But there are right facts. And if the basis of someone's prioritization is "climate change isn't even happening, so of course we shouldn't do anything to fight it" then I think it's reasonable to call that position uninformed. The problem isn't that some people think it's unimportant. The problem is that many people think it's not even real.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Of course there are right facts, the point is that there are right facts on both sides of the argument. I.e. you can be as educated liberal as you want that does not mean that the facts you care about are more important than the facts som uneducated trump supporter cares about.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      My point is that there aren't right facts on both sides of many of the arguments we currently fight.