4 ms·
The author and editor of the economist made a technical error in saying that. Having a strawman argument about sulfur dioxide about that without pointing out w
by WhatIsDukkha 10y ago
The author and editor of the economist made a technical error in saying that.
Having a strawman argument about sulfur dioxide about that without pointing out why the rest of reality doesn't like sulfur dioxide is the essence of bad faith argumentation.
Everyone reading the strawman argument is worse off.
Instead -
"Sulfur dioxide isn't as much a global warming issue as just a serious pollutant and we care because X"
- mikeash 10y ago"Bad faith," seriously? I have to mention the bad aspects of anything that doesn't contribute to global warming if someone says it does? What's next, someone says mercury emitted by coal plants contributes to global warming, and I have to be careful to say "it's still a serious pollutant" if I point out that it doesn't?
- WhatIsDukkha 10y agoYes. Especially in an area like this that is already full of noise and confusion. Why don't you step up and improve peoples understanding instead of baiting a low information comment? I guess the answer is you are inclined to not take pollution seriously and this is more fun?
- mikeash 10y agoFuck me for asking for clarification and stating my understanding of the topic, I guess? You want to know what "bad faith argumentation" looks like? It's seeing someone post "Do you have a source on that? My understanding was that they are short lived and block heat rather than retain it." and responding with "So acid rain etc isn't really significant to you?" If you think some additional context would help people's understanding, then maybe you should provide it, instead of making idiotic assumptions about people's views and sarcastically criticizing them for it.