Oilsands and misinformation?

[waldo]

a part of the misinformation being pushed prefers to label the U.S. State Department's decision to pursue alternate pipeline routes as strictly a "political dodge" by Obama himself.

of course that type of targeted misinformation doesn't acknowledge the Republican Governor's own decision against the initial KXL route:

Nebraska governor asks Obama to nix Keystone pipeline

The governor of Nebraska urged U.S. President Barack Obama's administration on Wednesday to deny a key permit for TransCanada's Keystone XL crude oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast of Texas.

The State Department should deny the permit on the grounds that the line could put the Ogallala Aquifer at risk, the midwestern state's governor, Dave Heineman, said in a letter to Obama that was issued to the media.

Edited December 22, 2011 by waldo

[cybercoma]

That is proper advice, and I have observed the tenacity with which you debate and research, providing your findings. You are among a good core group of posters on this forum.

I used to do something like that and one day while proving beyond a doubt that this fellow was wrong, it occurred to me that I was, to a great extent, wasting my time. People tend to not go quietly when they've been bested. They move the goal posts or simply disbelieve the facts, data, or whatever, and you can argue in circles for hours, and what's the point of that? I try to stay away from wasting my time. You can't prove the point to another person when they hold their views with religious fervor, so I try avoid posters like that. But champion your causes, there is no harm in that.

This is really good advice and I'm afraid you're right. Maybe I'm being too optimistic thinking that people will let go of irrational beliefs if they're just shown how their conclusions are illogical. They'll tend to see conclusions that don't fit their biases as wrong, even though they follow logically from stated premises; or, they will agree with conclusions that do not follow logically from stated premises becuase those conlusions match their bias. We're all guilty of it to some extent or another (I would say on average we probably do this between 10-15% of the time), but it seems that there is a number of people that do it far more frequently than that and absolutely refuse to see the logical errors that they're making. What's even more concerning is that Facebook, internet forums like this, and social media more generally has fostered the belief that different conclusions are equally acceptable. Different logical conclusions may be equally acceptable, but people seem to be more frequently suggesting that it doesn't matter if a conclusion is logical. There's a false notion of "balance", without any real understanding of logic.

At the end of the day, there's just too many people that just try to get a rise out of others (trolling) or just come to conclusions without actually looking into anything. For example, many posters will refer to laws without ever actually having read those laws. Every statute in Canada is posted online. It only takes a second to look them up. I don't know why people don't do this. Moreover, when specific laws are pointed out to people, they just ignore the parts that don't fit with their bias or move the goalposts as you say to a philosophical argument, when initially they may have been making a legal one.

Edited December 22, 2011 by cybercoma

[waldo]

Different logical conclusions may be equally acceptable, but people seem to be more frequently suggesting that it doesn't matter if a conclusion is logical. There's a false notion of "balance", without any real understanding of logic.

a take-off on that false notion of "balance" is one well flaunted by MLW's cast of fake AGW/CC skeptics... they actually believe there's a real scientific debate going on... that there's some scientific balance shifting to-and-fro. They don't even realize the essence of their position(s) stem from illogical unsupported foundations.

as you just saw in recent posts, they'll also offer lofty statements presuming to showcase their board presence; unfortunately, the loftiness most certainly don't match their typical drive-by style of insult packed posts, ones that are heavy laden with liberal uses of such labels/tags as, 'rabid, zealot, religious fervor, etc.'

[TimG]

Different logical conclusions may be equally acceptable, but people seem to be more frequently suggesting that it doesn't matter if a conclusion is logical.

What you are missing is many decisions come down to a decision based on values. Logic only gets you so far. When it comes to the climate debate it is really a question of whether it is better to incur certain hardship now in order to avoid greater hardship in the future where the level of hardship in the future is basically unknown. No logic can resolve this issue. It is a classic risk assessment problem where different people assess the same risk differently. e.g. some people would never ride a motocycle - others will. Is either position wrong?

For the most part people choose what side they are on based on how harmful they seen the policies today. People on the left see anti-CO2 policies as great vehicles to push their "social justice" agenda and only see climate change as an excuse to impose their value based agenda on others. People on the right oppose those policies for the same reason. The science is a side show in what is really an ideological battle.

Edited December 22, 2011 by TimG

[sharkman]

This is really good advice and I'm afraid you're right. Maybe I'm being too optimistic thinking that people will let go of irrational beliefs if they're just shown how their conclusions are illogical. They'll tend to see conclusions that don't fit their biases as wrong, even though they follow logically from stated premises; or, they will agree with conclusions that do not follow logically from stated premises becuase those conlusions match their bias. We're all guilty of it to some extent or another (I would say on average we probably do this between 10-15% of the time), but it seems that there is a number of people that do it far more frequently than that and absolutely refuse to see the logical errors that they're making. What's even more concerning is that Facebook, internet forums like this, and social media more generally has fostered the belief that different conclusions are equally acceptable. Different logical conclusions may be equally acceptable, but people seem to be more frequently suggesting that it doesn't matter if a conclusion is logical. There's a false notion of "balance", without any real understanding of logic.

At the end of the day, there's just too many people that just try to get a rise out of others (trolling) or just come to conclusions without actually looking into anything. For example, many posters will refer to laws without ever actually having read those laws. Every statute in Canada is posted online. It only takes a second to look them up. I don't know why people don't do this. Moreover, when specific laws are pointed out to people, they just ignore the parts that don't fit with their bias or move the goalposts as you say to a philosophical argument, when initially they may have been making a legal one.

You have touched on the dark side of the web. Not only does it lend legitimacy to extremists and their views, it provides a networking tool that has never before been available and attracts many more to their numbers than would have been possible. One has to be careful about what one reads online, but most are not.

[waldo]

For the most part people choose what side they are on based on how harmful they seen the policies today. People on the left see anti-CO2 policies as great vehicles to push their "social justice" agenda and only see climate change as an excuse to impose their value based agenda on others. People on the right oppose those policies for the same reason. The science is a side show in what is really an ideological battle.

utter nonsense! Define your use of:

=> "social justice"

=> imposed values

define them.....

you claim science as the "side show" because you can't rely upon the science to support your fake skepticism.

[waldo]

One has to be careful about what one reads online, but most are not.

lofty... very lofty

[sharkman]

It may be, but there is nothing wrong with reaching high. Avoiding garbage on the internet is not so hard to do.