I have one firm rule in life. If you tell me you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, I will stop listening to you as I will assume anything which comes next will be just as insane.
I have a more flexible rule regarding logical fallacies - if you use them frequently, I'll probably stop listening to you. I need flexibility on this one because if it were applied rigidly, I'd have to stop paying attention to politics.
Kyle Wingfield tackles Cap and Trade today and shockingly, I agree with most of his points.
Cap and Trade is a Rube Goldberg affair which likely won't accomplish its goal - can't disagree there.
It will likely be used for nefarious gain by greedy politicians - if it can be leveraged, a politician will grab the nearest lever.
A straight carbon tax would be fairer - A conservative calling for a tax? Both shocking and correct.
Unfortunately, to get to these meaty and worthy topics, you have to traverse the following:
One does not have to doubt, as I do, claims that the complex science of the Earth’s climate is “settled” to see that this bill is a sham.Well, hello Mr. Strawman wrapped in a cloak of incredulity.
Climate science is certainly not settled and no one claims it is. What has been described in layman's terms as "settled" is the overwhelming evidence that man is impacting the climate in an adverse manner.
And that leads us to the argument of incredulity. It's a personal favorite since it is so frequently used by creationists. The simple version is someone states something is so complex it can never be understood therefore any conclusions must be wrong.
Life is so diverse, therefore we can never understand it, so evolution cannot possibly explain it. The weather, atmosphere or whatever trope of the month is used to describe climatology is so complicated, climate scientists could never explain its actions.
Any scientist, if he or she didn't immediately apply my 6,000 year old rule, would reply, of course it is complex but that does not mean we cannot understand it nor should we stop trying.
Kyle, your writing reminds me of the old Jim I so frequently miss. It is well reasoned, worthy of conversation and certainly on the track of "common sense conservatism".
It would be a shame if so early in your run you decide fast fallacy is necessary to amplify steady reason.
Now about that name...maybe something with Winging in the title?