3 ms·

Ah yes, the "this is obviously a conspiracy" defense despite offering no evidence of such a conspiracy at all.

• aww_dang 6y ago
  I've posed questions about incentives. In lieu of engaging in a discussion, you've dismissed the possibility. You've provided no rationale (or evidence for that matter) for this flippant dismissal. Instead, you offer the 'conspiracy theory' pejorative. It is not a starting point for a conversation.
  • jf22 6y ago
    I have not dismissed the possibility there is a conspiracy. I'm only calling out that asking a leading question like this doesn't add to the conversation at all. There is an incredible irony to accuse me of providing no rational when this whole thing is about somebody alluding to a conspiracy with no rational at all. The starting point to a conversation should be "hey, there is a conspiracy here, this is why."
    • aww_dang 6y ago
      >Are there parties that benefit disproportionately by establishing a cost for carbon and the definition thereof? Asking about incentives, thinking critically about conflicts of interest doesn't add to the discussion because that might "allude to a conspiracy"? I don't know if I agree with that. For me it makes sense to first ask "Cui bono". Establish a motive and then search for evidence to prove a hypothesis. Posing the question is simply the beginning of the process. If you're closed minded about opening the door, my (reasonable or unreasonable, open for debate) expectation would be that you would dismiss anything within as "conspiracy theories". Hence the discussion becomes futile. I read your reply as skipping over the possibility of a conflict of interest in research rationalizing a carbon credit trading regime.