You are viewing ehowton

Politics

Who To Ask?

Posted on 2014.05.30 at 00:00
Current Location: 67114

I am always interested in politician's and stakeholder's opinions on science.

Politicians are no longer outright denying climate change, but many do disagree with the idea that climate change is as dramatic or catastrophic as scientists suggest.

A statement by the The Railroad Commissioner of Texas (the state agency that regulates the oil and gas industry) concludes there needs to be "further study" into scientist's evidence that fracking was causing earthquakes in Texas.

And by, "always" of course I mean, "never."

Comments:


Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2014-05-31 05:36 (UTC) (Link)
Since the science is settled on global warming Climate Change™, what is your considered, educated, peer-reviewed opinion on fracking's correlation with the earthquakes in Texas?
ehowton
ehowton at 2014-05-31 15:21 (UTC) (Link)
I don't have a considered, educated, peer-reviewed opinion. But as the title suggests, I likely wouldn't be asking the financial stakeholders for theirs!
Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2014-05-31 15:24 (UTC) (Link)
That doesn't make sense. The financial stakeholders in this case are the taxpayers. Are you saying that you're not a fan of democracy?
ehowton
ehowton at 2014-05-31 15:56 (UTC) (Link)
I thought you were past the dichotomous conclusion-jumping, I apologize. Financially-vested non-scientists debating scientists on matters of science = not a fan of democracy? Really? Really, Tomas? That's the logical conclusion at which you arrived?
Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2014-05-31 16:32 (UTC) (Link)
There isn't dichotomous conclusion-jumping on my side of the wire, sir, only yours. I made a series of calm, reasoned deductions:

  • You stated that you [are[ "always interested in politician's and stakeholder's opinions on science."


  • To which you added:
  • And by, "always" of course I mean, "never."


  • So by substation:
  • You never are interested in a politician's or a stakeholder's opinions on science.


  • Somewhat disjointedly, your block quote contains
  • a politician who thinks that there needs to be further study into scientists' evidence that fracking was causing earthquakes in Texas


  • From your earlier statement, I deduced that
  • you are not interested in analysis of scientists conclusions


  • Now, since a politician is calling for such analysis
  • that analysis can only be done at the behest of the government


  • If the government wants something done, it will cost money.

  • Government's money come from the people.


  • Therefore
  • you do not want to spend the taxpayer's money verifying that a group of scientists research is sound science.


  • Furthermore, since this government official was duly elected by his constituency and given the power to spend tax revenue for the public interest–an activity you have previously stated you opposed, one wonders if there is a baser cause of this opposition. One wonders if that baser cause isn't with the process itself. Ergo my question.


Edited at 2014-05-31 04:33 pm (UTC)
ehowton
ehowton at 2014-05-31 17:33 (UTC) (Link)
You never are interested in a politician's or a stakeholder's opinions on science.
CORRECT

you are not interested in analysis of scientists conclusions
INCORRECT

that analysis can only be done at the behest of the government
CORRECT

If the government wants something done, it will cost money.
CORRECT

Government's money come from the people.
CORRECT

you do not want to spend the taxpayer's money verifying that a group of scientists research is sound science.
INCORRECT

See? You got all the factual parts right, but all the personally-drawn conclusions wrong. I am VERY interested in analysis of scientists conclusions, and fully-support Government-funded OVERSIGHT analysis - NOT one funded by the FINANCIAL STAKEHOLDERS. You do see where that is a conflict of interest, right? Yes? No? Maybe?
Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2014-05-31 16:34 (UTC) (Link)
Really? Really, Tomas? That's the logical conclusion at which you arrived?
For someone who claims to be an emotionless being, you are one of the angriest people I have ever corresponded with on the internet.
ehowton
ehowton at 2014-05-31 21:11 (UTC) (Link)
Behavior, Tomas. I try to be mindful of my behavior. I assure you I am anything but emotionless.

Not that we don't all live by a set of assumptions, but which assumptions we make really does say a lot about our own worldview. The fact that you think the above is me being angry (incredulous, perhaps) tells me a lot about yourself. I'm sorry, I really am. No one should have to go through life like that - it must be very frustrating and confusing.

Also? This isn't the first time I've been misrepresented as being emotionless. Coincidence that it originates from dichotomous thinkers? I'll let you decide.
ehowton
ehowton at 2014-05-31 17:53 (UTC) (Link)
Have you been watching NGT's Cosmos? Fascinating show! (Unless you're a young-earth Creationist - that uniquely specific group is rather butthurt).
ehowton
ehowton at 2014-06-01 22:07 (UTC) (Link)
Another interesting point are the articles I've run across from numerous sources here lately explaining that the United States of America is so far removed from true democracy that we're actually now an oligarchy. I'll admit I have no idea if those news sources are purely liberal, purely conservative, or bipartisan, but if I view your question from this perspective, then no, I am not a fan of oligarchy.
ehowton
ehowton at 2014-05-31 18:06 (UTC) (Link)
Interesting link. My favorite was the quote, "The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong."
Previous Entry  Next Entry