4 ms·

You had a chance to educate me, but you chose to attack me on a personal level instead, and you defend a policy that sets a goal that must be reached at all cos

You had a chance to educate me, but you chose to attack me on a personal level instead, and you defend a policy that sets a goal that must be reached at all cost with a disregard for any negative effects.

omnimus 2y ago
These goals are what should limit the negative effects as much as possible. Its exact opposite of “disregard for any negative effect”. Its also broadly agreed on by sciencists and experts.
- toenail 2y ago
  > Its also broadly agreed on by sciencists Science is not based on agreement or consensus, it is based on evidence. Arguing that there's scientific agreement or consensus for anything is anti-scientific.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - threatofrain 2y ago
    > Arguing that there's scientific agreement or consensus for anything is anti-scientific. Do you imagine that in a world of scientific men and women engaging in empiricism, we should disregard the agreement in our discussions and simply rediscover medical science again and again from ground zero? We're going to tell patients "Oh, wait a few lifetimes, we're busy reconfirming everything because credibility and consensus is anti-scientific." That's what it means to disregard consensus. At some point you have to trust an entire discipline of professionals if you want to do Enormous Scale Medicine, not just singular pinpoint arguments or results.
    - toenail 2y ago
      We weren't talking about medicine, but if the medical research the consensus is based on was all funded by one entity, no, I wouldn't trust it.
      - abenga 2y ago
        Which "one entity" is funding climate change research?
atoav 2y ago
You had the chance to learn something and chose to feel attacked on a personal level instead. This wasn't an attack on you (I don't know you after all), this was arguing against a insufficiently informed take on a topic that will likely give the grandkids of your grandkids sleepless nights. So if you feel attacked, I am sorry, but the topic is more important than you and me. Also: The math on the costs of the consequences of climate change overwhelmingly shows that every proposed measure is a no-brainer from an economic standpoint. But this is also widely known knowledge.

omnimus 2y ago

These goals are what should limit the negative effects as much as possible. Its exact opposite of “disregard for any negative effect”. Its also broadly agreed on by sciencists and experts.

toenail 2y ago
> Its also broadly agreed on by sciencists Science is not based on agreement or consensus, it is based on evidence. Arguing that there's scientific agreement or consensus for anything is anti-scientific.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- threatofrain 2y ago
  > Arguing that there's scientific agreement or consensus for anything is anti-scientific. Do you imagine that in a world of scientific men and women engaging in empiricism, we should disregard the agreement in our discussions and simply rediscover medical science again and again from ground zero? We're going to tell patients "Oh, wait a few lifetimes, we're busy reconfirming everything because credibility and consensus is anti-scientific." That's what it means to disregard consensus. At some point you have to trust an entire discipline of professionals if you want to do Enormous Scale Medicine, not just singular pinpoint arguments or results.
  - toenail 2y ago
    We weren't talking about medicine, but if the medical research the consensus is based on was all funded by one entity, no, I wouldn't trust it.
    - abenga 2y ago
      Which "one entity" is funding climate change research?

atoav 2y ago

You had the chance to learn something and chose to feel attacked on a personal level instead. This wasn't an attack on you (I don't know you after all), this was arguing against a insufficiently informed take on a topic that will likely give the grandkids of your grandkids sleepless nights. So if you feel attacked, I am sorry, but the topic is more important than you and me. Also: The math on the costs of the consequences of climate change overwhelmingly shows that every proposed measure is a no-brainer from an economic standpoint. But this is also widely known knowledge.