Andrew, who I believe has pretty much the same agenda as you, said it:

“I want my policy adopted, and I don’t really care why it gets adopted.”

You have just said what you find wrong with the approachm you have not shown where my description of it is wrong.

So what does “the ends justify the means” mean to you?

Sorry, Coby,
“The ends justifies the means is a philosophy that says it does not matter *how* something is done as long as you end up better than you start”

is incorrect. Because, no matter what the subject at hand, the end will include the means. So, to say it will end up better than it was before is extremely simplistic and shortsighted. To condone deceit is, well, what alarmists do.

And, Andrew – your definition of immoral is telling as well.

“This is exactly the thinking and action that got us into Iraq based on lies and mistruths. This approach to public policy is undemocratic and immoral.”

And nowhere did I ask you to oppose GHG regulations. That is the end, I am talking about means.

Thanks.

Let me get this straight: I should oppose any GHG regulations as long as anyone mistakenly attributes Katrina to AGW? If I do not do that, then I’m being immoral? Or is it my lack of outrage that makes me immoral?

I won’t say you’re being immoral, but I will say you’re being sanctimonious and out of touch with reality.

Regards.

====
“I want my policy adopted, and I don’t really care why it gets adopted.” This is about as clear a statement as you’ll ever see of the principle that “the ends justify the means.”
====

Respectfully, no, it is not. You are completely confusing “why” with “how”. The ends justifies the means is a philosophy that says it does not matter *how* something is done as long as you end up better than you start. I other words doing wrong is justified by coming right in the end. The statement above expresses that it is not important why you do something as long as you do the right thing. No one holding Andrew’s view or agreeing with my expression that kicked this all off, is advocating doing anything wrong.

“I don’t care how you do it, as long as it gets done” emphatically does not equal “I don’t care why you do it, as long as it gets done.”

Thanks for your comments. First off, I am not picking on Coby.

But I will pick on you — you write, “I want my policy adopted, and I don’t really care why it gets adopted.” This is about as clear a statement as you’ll ever see of the principle that “the ends justify the means.”

I for one am quite skeptical of such approaches to policy in a democratic system. Whether the issue is the War in Iraq, wiretapping in pursuit of terrorists, the Patriot Act OR U.S. energy policy to mitigate global warming, I strong believe that we must pay as much attention to the means we employ to achieve desired ends as we do to the ends themselves.

Hence I completely reject the notion that you describe — “if, in the final analysis, Katrina helps get a GHG policy enacted, then I’m fine with that.” This is exactly the thinking and action that got us into Iraq based on lies and mistruths. This approach to public policy is undemocratic and immoral. This also is exactly why science has become so politicized, after all, what are a few bad policy arguments among the virtuous?

If that view makes me “hypocritical, uncivil, and out of touch with reality” then so be it.

Thanks.

But on a serious note, you are confusing the acknowledgement of a problem with the proposal of a solution. Personally, I am very careful to *never* waste my time discussing a solution with someone who does not yet acknowledge the problem. My gratitude here is for the public’s recognition of a problem, not for any particular policy advancement (has there been one?).

Now, where exactly did I claim that we should fight global warming by exterminating the Jews?

Your response confuses me. I agree that scientists should not misrepresent scientific knowledge (nor should anyone else), but why are you picking on poor Coby? He did not misrepresent any science, nor is he a scientist (I think).

In fact, I agree with Coby. As a citizen, there are many issues on which I have a strongly held positions (tax reform, the Iraq war, privacy issues, and yes, AGW). For each of these, I have a preferred policy. I want my policy adopted, and I don’t really care why it gets adopted. Not everyone has to agree with *my reasoning* and I don’t have to agree with theirs. If some people support action on AGW because they misunderstand the science … well then they cancel the people that oppose AGW because of a cancelling misunderstanding.

I don’t excuse misrepresentation of science, and I correct it wherever possible … but if, in the final analysis, Katrina helps get a GHG policy enacted, then I’m fine with that.

There’s a sanctimonious and mean tone to the post and subsequent comments that I find hypocritical, uncivil, and out of touch with reality.

Regards.