Pop Quiz
August 25th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Some friday fun:
The follow quote refers to what:
“I guess this is just people holding the correct [political] opinion for the wrong [science/intelligence] reasons and let’s accept it with gratitude.”
A. Dick Cheney commenting upon learning that a majority of Americans believe that 9/11 is related to Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
B. A commentator at Real Climate upon learning that a majority of Americans believe that the Katrina disaster was caused by global warming.
Hey what is a little public misunderstanding of policy arguments so long as it helps your political agenda?! 
August 25th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
At the risk of giving up the game, Roger, I nevertheless am happy to get here for the first comment.
Pretty low blow, I must say. Though I believe in the sage advice contained in the common saying that one must not attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity, I just don’t think you are stupid.
To clarify for your perhaps trusting readers, here is an expansion of the quote that contains the necesary context.
“I guess that this poll showing a healthy majority of people now believe that global warming is happening and having an effect on a variety of extreme weather events is a case of reaching the correct scientific conclusion from the incorrectly interpreted evidence of the catastrophic flooding of NOLA due to Hurricane Katrina”
I hope that helps.
August 25th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Well, I should have reread my own words first, it shows Roger’s misrepresentation in an even worse light than my more extensive reconstruction:
“WRT Katrina and the summer heat wave convincing people that GW is here and now and a problem, I guess this is just people holding the correct opinion for the wrong reasons and let’s accept it with gratitude.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/new-public-opinion-poll-on-global-warming/#comment-18180
It is not clear to me how Roger interpretes the view that GW is here and it is a problem as a political opinion, even given his extremely broad definition of political.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Coby, I suggest instead that we take Roger at face value rather than run the risk of being accused of misunderstanding him.
In the first instance, the irrationally acquired view results in support for an unmitigatedly catstrophic invasion, the negative consequences of which are obvious for all to see and will echo for decades to come.
In the second instance, it probably results in firm steps toward global warming mitigation being taken sooner. Nothing about this will make needed adaptation to particular AGW impacts any less likely, and will reduce the future magnification of those impacts.
Gosh, I sure can’t tell the difference.
August 26th, 2006 at 7:16 am
Sorry guys -
Roger’s karma just ran over your dogma. There is no difference – unless you can give some specifics backing up this statement:
“Nothing about this will make needed adaptation to particular AGW impacts any less likely, and will reduce the future magnification of those impacts.”
What impacts?
What magnification?
No irrational assumptions allowed – which effectively negates your Cerberian responses…
Besides, no need to get all excited about it anyway:
http://tinyurl.com/mhtqd
August 26th, 2006 at 7:51 am
Coby- Thanks for your comments. This post isn’t about your personally (which is why I didn’t identify you as the author), but a general attitude toward science and politics.
Since you have added your further comments, let me add what you ended your RealClimate comment with:
“The population is full of misconceptions, I for one do not rank the misconception that Katrina was caused by CO2 as a high priority to correct. I would not say it, and will correct people who say it to me, but I don’t feel any urge to go out of my way to stamp it out.
Is that wrong?”
Yeah, in my view it is wrong. Thanks!
August 26th, 2006 at 7:54 am
Steve Bloom-
You comment illustrates perfectly the problem. You are evaluating the misuse of science by the political ends for which you’d like it to be applied.
You are saying that the Iraq war was a bad decision so misuse of/confusion on underlying information is important.
You are saying tha mitigation action is a good decision so misuse of/confusion on underlying information is irrelevant.
Politicization of science. QED.
Thanks.
August 26th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
I find it interesting, Roger, that you think it is wrong not to proactively work to remove a particular public misconception secondary to the central issue (such an altruistic sentiment!), but you evidently think it is okay to outright lie about another’s expressed opinion in a way essential to making your (political) point.
To clarify, the poll that prompted all this says that the public is now more convinced about the reality of the central issue (“global warming is real”). The likely cause behind this shift, however, is actually where the misconception is (“Katrina is proof”). It is of a secondary importance to the central issue.
Your misrepresentation of what I wrote however, relies on rewriting what I said, specifically, claiming that when I wrote “the correct opinion” I was meaning the opinion that the Katrina disaster was caused by global warming. I was clearly meaning “the correct opinion” the opinion that global warming is a real problem. That meaning is crystal clear until you remove the first clause of my sentence. This is simply a lie by ommission.
There are many public misconceptions out there, Roger, and while it would be nice to work towards eliminating all of them, given the constraint of finite free time one must pick and chose and prioritize. What makes you think you have such moral authority that you can make the blanket judgement that it is wrong to value correcting that particular misconception below any others?
You say it was not personal to me, just trying to illustrate a point, but if you have to invent quotations to make your point, well…maybe you don’t actually have a very strong one to make. One might wonder if you think that because you are right, a little lie to make people agree with you is not really a bad thing.
Bringing us full circle! But I don’t need to misquote you to do it
August 26th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Coby-
I quoted you 100% accurately. You have since added various qualifications about what you actually meant, and that is fine. You ask why I have passed judgment . . . well you asked of your views “Is that wrong?”
So I answered.
But it is not about you, really. The more general point here is that people who dismiss as irrelevant misconceptions about Katrina and global warming (see also Steve Bloom’s comments ehre) probably shouldn’t be complaining much about those who have exploited misconceptions about Iraq and terrorism. Many of those folks I am sure would echo yopur comments in their context and say that such Iraq/terrorism misconceptions really don’t matter much compared to others.
For my part I think that policy arguments should be well grounded. And we can agree to disagree on that if you’d like in the case of global warming.
Thanks.
August 26th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
As disciples of catastrophic AGW, perhaps Mr Coby and Mr Bloom are not prepared to renounce the “ends justify the means” philosophy, that Dr Schneider himself has renounced?
August 26th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Roger, this has already become a bigger deal than I ever intended, but you are presenting worse behaviours after bad.
You are a political scientist, I believe. Regardless, this blog is cleary all about the politics of scientific issues and you are observant of the people and issues and intelligent. Don’t take me, or your other readers, for fools and pretend that you are so naive as to think a quote is “100% accurate” simply because most of the correct words appear in the correct order. Removal of context and misrepresentation of general terms that may be ambiguous when isolated are standard tools in setting up strawman arguments or otherwise misrepresenting a contrary view or person.
I said:
“WRT Katrina and the summer heat wave convincing people that GW is here and now and a problem, I guess this is just people holding the correct opinion for the wrong reasons and let’s accept it with gratitude.”
you presented it as:
“I guess this is just people holding the correct opinion for the wrong reasons and let’s accept it with gratitude.”
This way, reader can no longer know what I was refering to with the word “this” due to the removed material. You then rewrote my meaning by (mis)explaining that “this” meant “a majority of Americans believe that the Katrina disaster was caused by global warming”.
That is a kind of misquote, your naive contention that it is accurate because you only used copy-paste notwithstanding. I would hope you can be good enough to acknowledge this, I will not concern myself with whether or not you feel you should apologize.
–
I am not happy if people think GW caused NOLA to drown. I am happy that people are beginning to believe that GW is an urgent and real issue. I would be happiest if everyone understood clearly the scientific and social issues of climate change, adaption and mitigation and intelligent, rational discourse ruled the day.
I really hope that is stated clearly enough.
As for your “have you stopped beating your wife” closing:
“For my part I think that policy arguments should be well grounded. And we can agree to disagree on that if you’d like in the case of global warming.”
I have never advocated basing any policy on anything other than sound reasoning and information, nor do I think you can (fairly) quote me doing otherwise.
August 26th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Coby-
You are absolutely correct that when you wrote the word “this” I interpreted it to mean what you had written immediately before that, i.e., — “WRT Katrina and the summer heat wave convincing people that GW is here and now and a problem . . .”
Your “this” I interpreted as the following complete logic (and not just the increased public concern part):
Katrina –> public belief that GW caused Katrina –> increased public concern over GW
You yourself referred to this complete logic — “I guess this is just people holding the correct opinion for the wrong reasons and let’s accept it with gratitude.”
I interpreted your phrases “correct opinion” to mean “concern over global warming” and “wrong reasons” to mean “public associating Katrina disaster with global warming”. That is how I see it.
I really have no interest in further parsing your comment at RC, so if you really meant something different than how I interpreted your words as explained above, then I certainly do apologize, but I’ll be honest that I sure do not understand your complaint given what you wrote.
Thanks.
August 26th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Roger, don’t think it wasn’t obvious how you dodged my reference to your fantasy about mitigation making adaptation less likely. Frankly, if I were in the business of organizing my time based on trying to correct the most pernicious assumptions about AGW, I would focus on your mischaracterizations rather than on the comparatively harmless ones held by the public.
August 26th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Steve B.-
I discussed the notion of adaptation versus mitigation in some depth here, and in particular how a focus on mitigation unnecessarily does deemphasize adaptation:
Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2005. Misdefining ‘‘climate change’’: consequences for science and action, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 8, pp. 548-561.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1841-2004.10.pdf
Less academic, see also:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.html#000905
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000844climate_change_is_a_.html
Thanks.
August 26th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
I have read and reread all of the posts. I am not really able to discern what the discrepancy is. There seem to be some subtle differences between Coby and RPJR but not enough that would relegate this topic. To be sure, it seems to be quite an innocuous comment that illustrates the pitfalls of when the rigor of science meets the informality of politics.
August 26th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
==
“I interpreted your phrases “correct opinion” to mean “concern over global warming” and “wrong reasons” to mean “public associating Katrina disaster with global warming”. That is how I see it.”
==
Fair enough, that is close to how I meant it, though I was speaking about the acceptance of the phenomenon, “concern” is a rather value-based word. Once again I find that the harder I try to understand your point, the less I do. But this brings us back to a confusion I expressed at the top of this exchange:
How is it that the belief that Global Warming is happening and affecting us now a political opinion?
August 26th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
I’m not sure I understand what the problem here is. In any high-stakes policy battle, advocates use whatever arguments they think will win the policy battle. That’s why guys like Frank Luntz exist — to tell advocates which arguments work. Legitimate science areguments are used if they are the persuasive, but advocates have few qualms about using false or misleading ones if they turn out to be more effective. Thus, it would be amazing if advocates in favor of action on AGW *did not* use Katrina as a lever for action.
What can be done to limit the scope for partisan distortion of scientific knowledge in policy debates? One approach that is not likely to be effective, but which Roger seems to enjoy, is exhorting the purveyors of false and misleading scientific claims to be more honest. The powerful incentives to use scientific arguments in policy debates – good ones if you have them, bad ones if you don’t – are likely to overwhelm any such attempt at moral suasion. Moreover, even if public exposure destroys the credibility of one or a few egregious liars – which seldom happens – the rewards of this role provide ample incentive for others to step up and take their place.
As I’ve argued before, the key to limiting partisan distortion lies with scientific assessments. They provide the best summary of what we know and what we don’t. There are of course barriers to successful adoption of this strategy, but it’s still the most likely to achieve a goal that we all say we support: accurate science in the policy debate.
Regards.
August 26th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Andrew- Thanks. I mostly agree with you. One clarification, you write that I focus on, “exhorting the purveyors of false and misleading scientific claims to be more honest”. Actually, I am a bit more specific than this — I try to focus on the scientific community, not partisan advocates or politicians (unless it s my work involved;-), and not to simply be “honest” but to make arguments for policies that can work as advertised, preferrably in the form of a range of options.
And one point of disagreement — science assessments that don’t openly discuss policy options can’t hope to ake arguments for policies that can work as advertised, preferrably in the form of a range of options. Such assessments run the risk of politicization or having a negative effect on policy debate. Witness how the IPCC serves to create a bias against adaptation.
Thanks.
August 27th, 2006 at 7:36 am
Is believing in global warming because of Katrina the moral equivalent of believing that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11? Hardly.
Some people may believe in global warming because of hurricane Katrina, but only because of a lack of knowledge or comprehension of the science. People believe that the Iraq war is connected with 9-11 because of an intentional and politically motivated effort to mislead the public.
The distinction here is clear: most climate scientists have been honest and specific in their characterization of the connection between Katrina and global warming. If the public misunderstands, it’s an indictment of the scientific literacy of the public, not the quality of the science. However, the extent to which the public believes that Iraq had something to do with 9-11 indicts the politicians who have cynically misled the public with political rhetoric that intends to make such a connection in the public mind.
Those who have sown doubt in the public opinion about the reality of global warming have more in common with those politicians than with the scientists who have honestly explored the possible connections between hurricanes and global warming.
Global warming skeptics were perfectly happy to exploit the publics’ scientific ignorance with their long discredited arguments. As real world examples of climate change accumulate, the public is beginning to see through the bogus arguments of the “skeptics”. If the public doesn’t grasp the subtleties and details of the science, it’s not because of an intentional lobbying effort by climate scientists to deceive and mislead them.
Katrina killed 1700 people. If that scared some people into believing in global warming, so what. It would be nice if the public understood the details of the scientific arguments, but that is a lot to expect of busy people with lives that don’t revolve around the global warming debate. Global warming skeptics who have cynically manipulated public opinion by exploiting the scientific illiteracy of the general public have committed the real wrong, comparable in every way to the lies and distortions that led to this fiasco of a war.
August 27th, 2006 at 11:14 am
If industry had chosen bromine instead of chlorine as its base for halogen fluorocarbon development, the ozone layer would have been gone before the science noticed the problem, as Paul Creutzen pointed out in his Nobel speech.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/Pr_3_2002_i_EN.html
“… before 1974 no one was concerned about the effects of chlorine and bromine on the atmosphere, I can only say that we were lucky. This shows that we should be on our toes about the possible effects of the introduction of new products in the environment.
The amount of profit from the activity, the rate at which profit is made, the rate of “external” damage, the rate at which damage becomes unrecoverable, the rate at which damage is noticed, and the rate at which politics can resolve the problem are all issues here.
Compare China, where industrialization happened in decades instead of over a century or more:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5290236.stm
the damage from acid rain has been faster; the rate at which their politics can react appears even slower. Same result, shorter time, on a less resilient landscape.
Imagine if the US market and political system had coped with the “externalized” damage from coal plants thirty years ago when the science became clear — not only would the US have better technology, but China and India would have industrialized with that better technology.
When I see pure delaying tactics — the kind of selective quoting done that initiated this thread, for example — I can only recall the question an English newsman asked Gandhi, and his reply.
“What do you think of Western Civilization, Mr. Gandhi?”
“I think that it would be a good idea.
August 27th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Based on the comments from this little quiz, I guess you Professors will be giving full credit to your students who come up with the right answers, even if it is for the wrong reasons! (I wish my college math teachers would have done that!)
This is not a question of moral equivalency. It is a question of promoting good policy for sound, honest reasons. It is a question of technique. Despots and dictators have always taken advantage of the ‘ignorance of the masses’ to get what they wanted. I am sure they were grateful for such ignorance and comfortable with their superior understanding and self righteousness, often viewing themselves as benevolent. History, on the other hand, rarely agrees with their self-assesment.
If you do not wish to be judged as harshly, do not employ their methods, even if you truly believe with all your heart and soul that it is the right answer, just generated from the wrong reasons. If it is the right answer, the right reasons should be all you accept to support it.
August 27th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Jim,
The reason a math teacher will flunk you on an exam if you use the wrong equations, even if you somehow get the right answer, is because the purpose of a course is to learn and the purpose of an exam is to demonstrate that you have done so. Thus the right answer for the wrong reasons is not good enough.
Since you have graciously accepted setting aside whether or not “global warming is real and dangerous” is the right answer in favour of whether or not it is a sincere belief, I will base my simple point on that foundation.
In this case, unlike the math exam, the point is to avoid danger, understanding the danger correctly is clearly of a secondary nature. If people wake up to a real danger and thereby take action to aoid it, this is a Good Thing ™ and correcting the misconception that awoke them is trivially obviously a lower priority, IMO.
Now if I may, I would like to emphasize that all of this is coming entirely from a concern about Global Warming. The mistake Roger keeps making is transfering these sentiments into the hurricane damage mitigation arena and attacking them there. For the record, if I were a resident of NOLA, I would work very hard to make sure that no one believed that emissions control is the answer to the danger of hurricane damage.
August 27th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Coby-
“If people wake up to a real danger and thereby take action to aoid it, this is a Good Thing ™ and correcting the misconception that awoke them is trivially obviously a lower priority, IMO.”
This danger has been present for at least 3000 years. And we know for sure that there has been category 5 hurricanes for the last 150 years.
People need to wake up to which danger A)the possibility that cat 5 hurricane could be more frequent in the future or B) that a cat 5 hurricane can happen at anytime.
If your afraid of A you try to mitigate but will still be hit be such a hurricane. If you are afraid of B then you try to adapt to it by building stronger house, having better evacuation plan, etc.
In the end you can’t mitigate without adapting but you can adapt without mitigating.
August 27th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
“If people wake up to a real danger and thereby take action to aoid it, this is a Good Thing ™ and correcting the misconception that awoke them is trivially obviously a lower priority, IMO.”
… a dangerous assertion, I think. If the misconception concerns the cause of the danger, then there is the real risk that the chosen action will be inappropriate and ineffective in solving the problem. Whether it is GW or anything else, this seems to me the reason that scientists and engineers must work to communicate and explain the science as best we understand it.
An ill-defined problem invariably results in a bad solution. Accurately identifying the cause of a problem is essential to defining it…and mitigating it.
August 27th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Hey, it’s Coby Beck!
Coby, on July 27th, I asked you to give me a breakdown on what caused the ~1 degree Celsius rise in temperature from 1885 to 2005:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/moveabletype/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=882
Curiously, right after I asked that question, you went away for about a month.
I really hope you can clear this up for me, because I didn’t realize that the issue was settled until you said so. So I’d like to get the breakdown, in case any laypeople ask me. (They’ll know that Coby Beck knows his stuff.)
August 27th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Sylvain,
I’ll take answer (C) thank you – the earth is warming at an unnatural and dangerous pace due to anthropogenic emissions of GHG’s. That is the danger that I am glad people are waking up to.
When you say 3000 years, I assume you mean strong hurricanes, because AGW is a very recent phenomenon.
August 27th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Hi Mark,
Sorry if I ignored you before, I don’t recall the circumstances but I probably figured you were just baiting me and not really interested in the question (kind of like now).
Not being a producer of original research on this, all I can do is to point you to one of my favorite graphics that answers you:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
I also recommend material in the IPCC TAR, WG1, such as this:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
…though it is probably starting to be a bit out of date.
August 28th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
I don’t think Coby is alone in his thinking when he wrote:
“If people wake up to a real danger and thereby take action to aoid it, this is a Good Thing ™ and correcting the misconception that awoke them is trivially obviously a lower priority, IMO.”
Such reasoning has been recorded throughout history! It is the same rational that empowered cultural forces from ancient mythologies to modern day religious cults. It empowered communism, the rise of Nazi Germany and many of the socialistic practices of today. All were attempts to address real problems, but the REAL cause of the problems was unknown, misunderstood and/or confusing, thus deemed a secondary issue.
“Arise! Arise! We must deal with ‘Problem A’ and I have the solution! Come, follow me!” shouts the crusader!
“But your solution does not address the real cause.” the skeptic says. “It is very complicated, but look at what is really happening here.”
“We do not have time for this. The danger of ‘Problem A’ is upon us. Pay no attention to his obfuscations!” shouts the crusader! “He no doubt has been paid off by (insert latest cultural bad guy here) and obviously wants your children to suffer! I have the solution! Follow me!”
One would think that humanity might begin to recognize this drama, since it has been played out thousands of times through the course of human history, usually with nasty results. But no! We are still drawn to the crusader and the crusade, often with very logical (in our minds) reasons for doing so.
In hindsight, the mistakes we made, the false assumptions we bought into, the misinterpretation of data…all become obvious and we wonder how we could have been so blind. Then another problem arises and we do it all again!
Statements about Katrina and AGW may seem trivial, but crusades are not built on monumental proclamations. They are built on countless little half-truths and rationalizations that lead to solutions that don’t address the problem, and usually lead to disaster.
August 28th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Roger-
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.
August 28th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Jim, you should provide the citation when quoting from Michael Crichton
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?
August 28th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Andrew-
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.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Ok Roger, here we have your mistake as clear as it ever will be:
====
“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.”
August 28th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Roger-
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.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Andrew- I’d be happy to continue this discussion on my new thread on this subject. Lets see if we can continue minus the name calling, OK? Thanks.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Andrew- One additional point. I did not call you immoral, please read what I wrote:
“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.
August 28th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
It’s amazing how the admissions of favoring underhandedness are coming out in this conversation. Alarmism is like that.
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.
August 28th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Steve,
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?
August 28th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Coby -
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.”