Bo102010 comments on You're Entitled to Arguments, But Not (That Particular) Proof - Less Wrong

57 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 February 2010 07:58AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (221)
Tags: logical_rudeness agw creationism particular_proof

Comments (221)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RobinZ 15 February 2010 01:47:01PM 4 points [-]

I still think that policies designed to mitigate AGW (ethanol, handouts to "green" companies, handouts to well-connected polluters with restrictions on less-well-connected-ones) might be worse than the effects of AGW. But that's not a legitimate reason for arguing against AGW.

I think more relevant is that a lot of the policies "designed to mitigate AGW" aren't designed to mitigate AGW - they are, as you mentioned, policies which people were calling for already. The real policies to mitigate AGW are things like carbon taxes, which no-one would have proposed if AGW wasn't being considered.

Comment author: Bo102010 15 February 2010 04:31:43PM 2 points [-]

Perhaps I should have said "designed".

I am also wary of policies that are ostensibly for one thing (carbon taxes, cap and trade), but actually for another (giving incumbents and well-connected/non-foreign companies an advantage over newcomers/foreign companies).

Comment author: RobinZ 15 February 2010 04:54:47PM 0 points [-]

That's a general problem in politics, unfortunately - not particularly related to AGW.

Comment author: Bo102010 15 February 2010 06:12:16PM 2 points [-]

True, but the point here is that to some it seems easier to argue against AGW instead of against the policies.

Comment author: RobinZ 15 February 2010 09:28:13PM 0 points [-]

Agreed.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit