6 ms·

Now we just need enlightened politicians to sell these taxes to the public.

by reallydontask 7y ago

xienze 7y ago
Well they're certainly trying, by parading a young girl around to make emotional appeals.
- reallydontask 7y ago
  It seems as if you disapprove (apologies if I'm reading too much into your comment). What is the alternative? Cold hard facts don't seem to move the majority of people as they are hard to relate to.
  - xienze 7y ago
    > It seems as if you disapprove I do, because trying to manipulate people's emotions is the lowest form of argumentation. Not to mention the fact that she (or rather, her handlers) only care to target western countries. I'd be more willing to trust her (handler's) sincerity if she ALSO AT THE SAME TIME called out the country that has a giant brown cloud, visible from space, hanging over it. > What is the alternative? Make a better argument for why _this time_ it's truly different. Start off by admitting that scientists aren't always correct ("the science is settled" is one of the dumbest phrases ever uttered) and admit that scientists HAVE gotten things wrong about the climate in the past (e.g., the ice age predictions of the 70s). Then proceed with arguments that detail why previous dire predictions were incorrect and why it's different this time. Finally, be logically consistent in your arguments: * People in western countries are told to "have fewer children" in order to save the earth. Well guess what, we're already below replacement levels. We've done our part. Lecture folks in the developing world to do so, they're the ones contributing to overpopulation. * At the same time, much is said about per-capita CO2 emissions in western countries. Why do we hear complete silence from climate alarmists about migration from third-world to first-world countries? I would think they'd be staunchly opposed to it, seeing as how every person imported into western countries will instantly have their carbon footprint boosted sky high. Wouldn't it be better for the earth to not have these migration patterns occur?
    - chimprich 7y ago
      > I do, because trying to manipulate people's emotions is the lowest form of argumentation. You claim this, but the rest of your post is primarily about emotions. You want people to admit they were wrong, as if that makes any difference to the science. > Start off by admitting that scientists aren't always correct I can't imagine you could find a single scientist who wouldn't admit this, but ironically the example you give, "the ice age predictions of the 70s", is a common myth propagated by global heating deniers. See [0]. > ("the science is settled" is one of the dumbest phrases ever uttered) The science is settled. Why do you think it's dumb? [0] https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.ht...
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        Young people have to rely on appealing arguments to know what was talked about in the 1970s. Older people remember "the coming ice age".
        amanaplanacanal 7y ago
        I'm old enough to have been around then. There may have been some popular articles about a coming ice age, but I don't remember any sort of consensus in the scientific community about that.
        jessaustin 7y ago
        No I don't think we ever heard of any consensus about that. Was that because climatology was sort of a niche field, or maybe we just didn't think about consensus as much back then?
        chimprich 7y ago
        From the article I cited: "Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember." There may have been more reporting of ice age predictions, but that wasn't what the scientists were saying.
  - justsubmit 7y ago
    What if you are one of the public that's been deceived for, now, over 20 years? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21115712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21115712

Now we just need enlightened politicians to sell these taxes to the public.

xienze 7y ago

Well they're certainly trying, by parading a young girl around to make emotional appeals.

reallydontask 7y ago
It seems as if you disapprove (apologies if I'm reading too much into your comment). What is the alternative? Cold hard facts don't seem to move the majority of people as they are hard to relate to.
- xienze 7y ago
  > It seems as if you disapprove I do, because trying to manipulate people's emotions is the lowest form of argumentation. Not to mention the fact that she (or rather, her handlers) only care to target western countries. I'd be more willing to trust her (handler's) sincerity if she ALSO AT THE SAME TIME called out the country that has a giant brown cloud, visible from space, hanging over it. > What is the alternative? Make a better argument for why _this time_ it's truly different. Start off by admitting that scientists aren't always correct ("the science is settled" is one of the dumbest phrases ever uttered) and admit that scientists HAVE gotten things wrong about the climate in the past (e.g., the ice age predictions of the 70s). Then proceed with arguments that detail why previous dire predictions were incorrect and why it's different this time. Finally, be logically consistent in your arguments: * People in western countries are told to "have fewer children" in order to save the earth. Well guess what, we're already below replacement levels. We've done our part. Lecture folks in the developing world to do so, they're the ones contributing to overpopulation. * At the same time, much is said about per-capita CO2 emissions in western countries. Why do we hear complete silence from climate alarmists about migration from third-world to first-world countries? I would think they'd be staunchly opposed to it, seeing as how every person imported into western countries will instantly have their carbon footprint boosted sky high. Wouldn't it be better for the earth to not have these migration patterns occur?
  - chimprich 7y ago
    > I do, because trying to manipulate people's emotions is the lowest form of argumentation. You claim this, but the rest of your post is primarily about emotions. You want people to admit they were wrong, as if that makes any difference to the science. > Start off by admitting that scientists aren't always correct I can't imagine you could find a single scientist who wouldn't admit this, but ironically the example you give, "the ice age predictions of the 70s", is a common myth propagated by global heating deniers. See [0]. > ("the science is settled" is one of the dumbest phrases ever uttered) The science is settled. Why do you think it's dumb? [0] https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.ht...
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      Young people have to rely on appealing arguments to know what was talked about in the 1970s. Older people remember "the coming ice age".
      - amanaplanacanal 7y ago
        I'm old enough to have been around then. There may have been some popular articles about a coming ice age, but I don't remember any sort of consensus in the scientific community about that.
        jessaustin 7y ago
        No I don't think we ever heard of any consensus about that. Was that because climatology was sort of a niche field, or maybe we just didn't think about consensus as much back then?
      - chimprich 7y ago
        From the article I cited: "Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember." There may have been more reporting of ice age predictions, but that wasn't what the scientists were saying.
- justsubmit 7y ago
  What if you are one of the public that's been deceived for, now, over 20 years? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21115712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21115712