Why Do The Anti-Car/Global Warming Advocates Win?
Discussion
Came across this in another place about another issue.
But it nicely encapsulates the problem:
[Quote=Robert T Carrol could equally have]
It is not an accident that the students of Break and environMentalism act more like disciples of a guru than students of a scientific teacher. They are on a mission, not a quest. And, as with many before them with noble goals, they believe the end justifies the means.
Hence, it is nearly futile to engage them in debate. Scholars have difficulty debating opponents such as Transport 2000, Reclaim the Streets or even Roadpeace, because they expect their opponents to be civil and play by the rules of scholarly evidence.
They mistakenly believe they have entered an arena where all sides are in quest of the same truth. What they are actually getting into is a street fight, where the goal is to defeat and humiliate your enemy.
Their opponents don't follow traditional standards of evidence in their printed arguments and diatribes, so why expect them to be any different in a public debate?
If you challenge their accuracy, they will question your integrity. If you ask for evidence, they will insult you. If you challenge their sources, you will be asked to prove the absolute certainty of your sources.
You think the arena is an intellectual one where the combatants use wit and intelligence to score points, but while you are looking above your opponent's shoulders, he will kick you in the groin.
You may have the evidence and the arguments on your side but your opponent doesn't care about the evidence and is not interested in your arguments. He already knows the truth.
http://skepdic.com/refuge/lefko.html[/quote]
Think of the children you speedophiles!
But it nicely encapsulates the problem:
[Quote=Robert T Carrol could equally have]
It is not an accident that the students of Break and environMentalism act more like disciples of a guru than students of a scientific teacher. They are on a mission, not a quest. And, as with many before them with noble goals, they believe the end justifies the means.
Hence, it is nearly futile to engage them in debate. Scholars have difficulty debating opponents such as Transport 2000, Reclaim the Streets or even Roadpeace, because they expect their opponents to be civil and play by the rules of scholarly evidence.
They mistakenly believe they have entered an arena where all sides are in quest of the same truth. What they are actually getting into is a street fight, where the goal is to defeat and humiliate your enemy.
Their opponents don't follow traditional standards of evidence in their printed arguments and diatribes, so why expect them to be any different in a public debate?
If you challenge their accuracy, they will question your integrity. If you ask for evidence, they will insult you. If you challenge their sources, you will be asked to prove the absolute certainty of your sources.
You think the arena is an intellectual one where the combatants use wit and intelligence to score points, but while you are looking above your opponent's shoulders, he will kick you in the groin.
You may have the evidence and the arguments on your side but your opponent doesn't care about the evidence and is not interested in your arguments. He already knows the truth.
http://skepdic.com/refuge/lefko.html[/quote]
Think of the children you speedophiles!
D Fender said:
Came across this in another place about another issue.
But it nicely encapsulates the problem:
Robert T Carrol could equally have said:
If you challenge their accuracy, they will question your integrity. If you ask for evidence, they will insult you. If you challenge their sources, you will be asked to prove the absolute certainty of your sources............
You may have the evidence and the arguments on your side but your opponent doesn't care about the evidence and is not interested in your arguments. He already knows the truth.
http://skepdic.com/refuge/lefko.html
Very well put.
I'm locked in combat with the Green Pratty in my local rag.
Their first response to my letter was personal attack.
Think I just might use the above.....thanks.
mybrainhurts said:
I'm locked in combat with the Green Pratty in my local rag.
Their first response to my letter was personal attack.
Think I just might use the above.....thanks.
The personal attacks?
Might be a plan!
Used to be a guy who got a letter in the local rag most weeks for about a year, then suddenly disappeared off the radar.
The in the last few weeks he's equally suddenly reappeared.
But both his letters have been of the vitriolic spleen variety. Worked for him!
I'll try to dig them out.
They wormed their way into positions of influence over decades. Politicians need to be seen doing something, and preferably good, so what better than to save the planet? It also gives them a good excuse to increases taxes and control.
In any argument, the side with the most money/best lawyers wins, so you have HM Govt with £x billion (of your money) versus intelligent, reasoned bodies like the ABD who can barely afford a newsletter. Might is right. Hang on, isn't that what Hitler said?
In any argument, the side with the most money/best lawyers wins, so you have HM Govt with £x billion (of your money) versus intelligent, reasoned bodies like the ABD who can barely afford a newsletter. Might is right. Hang on, isn't that what Hitler said?
I got involved in this debate with a few friends and aquantances at a pub the other night.
Someone brought up "Global warming" after someone else mentioned the warm weater we are having at the moment.
Everyone just assumes that the greens et al must be right.
Some one brought up melting glaciers as proof of man made warming. I countered with the end of the little ice age, circa 1800-1850, and the longer term end othe last major iceage, circa 10000 years ago as evidence of natural warming.
Some one brought up satelite temperature readings. I countered with the fact that most numbers are adjusted, that many readings are taken near towns that wre once just fields and that Mars also shows warming of a similar level to these readings.
Some one brought up the "hockey stick" graphs of temperature and CO2. I countered with the evidence pointing to temperature rise coming before CO2 rise over hundreds of years and that the Greens deliberately hide this by only showing a tiny part of the big picture.
Then the personal comments started.
Apparently I must be in favour of polution if I didn't belive in man made warming.
Apparently it is impossible to distinguish between natural and man made warming as one automatically implies the other.
It all ended with someone muttering that they knew the truth and that I was obviously burying my head in the sand on this important issue by ignoring the said truth.
Muppets.
Someone brought up "Global warming" after someone else mentioned the warm weater we are having at the moment.
Everyone just assumes that the greens et al must be right.
Some one brought up melting glaciers as proof of man made warming. I countered with the end of the little ice age, circa 1800-1850, and the longer term end othe last major iceage, circa 10000 years ago as evidence of natural warming.
Some one brought up satelite temperature readings. I countered with the fact that most numbers are adjusted, that many readings are taken near towns that wre once just fields and that Mars also shows warming of a similar level to these readings.
Some one brought up the "hockey stick" graphs of temperature and CO2. I countered with the evidence pointing to temperature rise coming before CO2 rise over hundreds of years and that the Greens deliberately hide this by only showing a tiny part of the big picture.
Then the personal comments started.
Apparently I must be in favour of polution if I didn't belive in man made warming.
Apparently it is impossible to distinguish between natural and man made warming as one automatically implies the other.
It all ended with someone muttering that they knew the truth and that I was obviously burying my head in the sand on this important issue by ignoring the said truth.
Muppets.
D Fender said:
But both his letters have been of the vitriolic spleen variety. Worked for him!
I'll try to dig them out.
Here we go:
angry old codger said:
Why, oh why, oh why do the editors insist on giving such utter and total piffle column inches?
It's not as if they haven't been told the truth.
Or will they only believe it when they see it written on their letters page?
No chance of that then - they refuse to publish my letters any more!
Stephanie Hilgers trots out that tired old cliche from the "public" transport industry funded Transport 2000 anti-car lobbying organisation:
Break the limit - expect a fine. No use crying, when you get caught, you only have yourself to blame (Letters, June 28).
Tell that to the hundreds (thousands?) "caught" by the camera on the M4 (and how many other places?) "accidentally" left set to the roadworks limit.
Or all the people "caught" because someone "forgot" to put up the roadworks limits sign. Or the ones "caught" breaking a limit that was illegally set up.
Or even all those "caught" breaking the limit despite actually driving at under 30, under 20, under ten, and even at under 5mph in a couple of cases that I'm aware of.
And these were usually just the people who could remember exactly what they were doing, where and when, and often could check and prove it with a tachograph record.
There are probably millions of others who have thought "No use crying" when they were "caught" and paid up needlessly.
angry old codger said:
I've just read the latest poppycock that is supposed to pass for a "planning" press release in the Evening Post ("It's Park Or Ride", July 15).
Just how dumb do councils think we are? Listen up.
Notts County Council might well "want to encourage as many people as possible to use public transport" but they do not "fear major problems if users do not turn to public transport".
If they did they would have done the work planned for Mansfield Road before the alternative route, Hucknall Road, was strangled as a major arterial route by road "improvements".
They would also have refrained from widening even further the extremely wide pavement on the approach to the six-exit roundabout in Thackerays Lane so that only one car at a time can squeeze up to it, thus strangling a possible diversion route away from Mansfield Road!
Sock it to 'em, man!
Give 'em both barrels!
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff