Pipeline Politics - EU wants more North American Oil

[TimG]

Just don't bring that religion to bear on law making which could well affect badly my non-religious environment.

Then why do you insist on using your eco-religion as a basis for law making that could well affect badly my non-religious environment?

[On Guard for Thee]

Then why do you insist on using your eco-religion as a basis for law making that could well affect badly my non-religious environment?

Because I prefer to form my conclusions about the environment based on science, not sermons.

[TimG]

Because I prefer to form my conclusions about the environment based on science, not sermons.

Your comments on the other thread about Germany's renewable failure make it clear you don't care about facts or evidence. Instead you only listen to what your eco-priests tell you to believe. There is really no difference between you and the people you criticize. Edited December 3, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Your comments on the other thread about Germany's renewable failure make it clear you don't care about facts or evidence. Instead you only listen to what your eco-priests tell you to believe. There is really no difference between you and the people you criticize.

You seem to think the "facts" you buy into are the only ones around, which tends to make the discussion a little narrow. In any case this thread is about pipelines, not religion.

[TimG]

You seem to think the "facts" you buy into are the only ones around

Now you are sounding just like a creationist defending the "fact" that the world is 6000 years old.

Unlike you, I provide links and other arguments to support the facts that I claim are true. You just asserted I was wrong.

Edited December 3, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Now you are sounding just like a creationist defending the "fact" that the world is 6000 years old.

Unlike you, I provide links and other arguments to support the facts that I claim are true. You just asserted I was wrong.

Pipelines, not religion, remember?

[Michael Hardner]

So he wants them to keep up production?

No he doesn't, but that isn't the argument. He's not advocating to stop using fossil fuels immediately. Why should he have to stop using them immediately ?

[Smallc]

Shouldn't he try to minimize his use?

[Michael Hardner]

Shouldn't he try to minimize his use?

Correct. So having several homes is fair game for questions but having a car really shouldn't be.

[dre]

Shouldn't he try to minimize his use?

No more than a person advocating war should go and sign up and fight. This tactic is the same as "chickenhawk" syndrome, or "Al gore drives a big car" syndrome. Silliness.

Of course... pointing out this type of percieved hypocracy in places like this is a common way of trying to discredit an arguer without tackling the argument but its not terribly compelling to people that... well... think.

[TimG]

No more than a person advocating war should go and sign up and fight.

Your analogy only applies to people advocating the draft because people pushing for an end to fossil fuels are looking to impose restrictions on others whether they like it or not. If they were simply looking for people to voluntary make sacrifices (or to be paid to do it) then your analogy would make sense.

Anyone who advocates policies to reduce CO2 should be living a life where they minimize their personal use. This does not mean they don't fly or drive or have a house but they should not be living a life of excess as so many of these bandwagon celebs do.

[overthere]

Your analogy only applies to people advocating the draft because people pushing for an end to fossil fuels are looking to impose restrictions on others whether they like it or not. If they were simply looking for people to voluntary make sacrifices (or to be paid to do it) then your analogy would make sense.

Anyone who advocates policies to reduce CO2 should be living a life where they minimize their personal use. This does not mean they don't fly or drive or have a house but they should not be living a life of excess as so many of these bandwagon celebs do.

Dave Suzuki lost me for good when I heard him on CBC a couple years ago.

He was on one of those 15 cities-in-10-days tours, promoting his latest book via jetting around the country in business class and appearing on CBC radio and TV at taxpayer expense.

Was his book an environmental critique? An exposition of the evil corporations?

Nope. It was his autobiography.

More accurately, Volume Two of his autobio.

[dre]

Anyone who advocates policies to reduce CO2 should be living a life where they minimize their personal use.

Hahahha. What a silly statement. This is just what I mentioned above, a sophormoric, half-witted attempt to discredit people. I consume lots of energy... I own multiple homes and properties... I have a small fleet of vehicles. Ill consume as much as I want to and can afford to... but that in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY means that I should not advocate for cleaner energy sources or for the rethinking of how the planet powers itself.

Logic is clearly not your strong suit.

[dre]

Correct. So having several homes is fair game for questions but having a car really shouldn't be.

Why is that correct? Why should he try to minimize use in any way? The entire premise is a unmitigated logic failure. I could be the biggest and most wasteful consumer of energy on the planet and still be critical of the energy sector and energy industry.

Please... go ahead. Lay out a logical case that explains why those critical of our energy supply should be minimalistic in their energy use... I cant wait.

[dre]

-

Edited December 5, 2014 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Anyone who advocates policies to reduce CO2 should be living a life where they minimize their personal use. This does not mean they don't fly or drive or have a house but they should not be living a life of excess as so many of these bandwagon celebs do.

Agreed.

[Michael Hardner]

Why is that correct? Why should he try to minimize use in any way? The entire premise is a unmitigated logic failure. I could be the biggest and most wasteful consumer of energy on the planet and still be critical of the energy sector and energy industry.

Well, there's the hypocrisy of 'do as I say, not as I do' is all...

[cybercoma]

Well, there's the hypocrisy of 'do as I say, not as I do' is all...

It's also an ad hominem fallacy to use that to discredit the arguments.

[TimG]

It's also an ad hominem fallacy to use that to discredit the arguments.

Would you say the same of a 'family values' politician caught having an affair?

[Michael Hardner]

It's also an ad hominem fallacy to use that to discredit the arguments.

I agree, but not to discredit the speaker - if they're making a moral argument, in effect.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, there's the hypocrisy of 'do as I say, not as I do' is all...

Didn't bother John & Yoko...they told us to "imagine no possessions" from the back seat of their Rolls Royce Phantom V.

[TimG]

I agree, but not to discredit the speaker - if they're making a moral argument, in effect.

If someone is making a moral argument and their actions suggest they do not believe what they say then it is perfectly legitimate to raise that as a counter argument. It is not an ad-hom.

For example, most people who claim that CO2 is the greatest threat facing mankind will turn around and oppose nuclear power despite the fact that it is the best option available to reduce emissions. Such hypocrisy says the speaker does not really believe that CO2 is a concern and their motivations for making that claim are something else. At a minimum, the speaker needs to explain why they are saying things they don't believe.

Edited December 5, 2014 by TimG

[dre]

Well, there's the hypocrisy of 'do as I say, not as I do' is all...

No there really isnt... Like I said, its just ad-hom fallacy like the "chicken hawk" meme. A tactic trotted out by lame-brains.

Now... If a person was advocating curbing personal consumption as the means to CO2 reduction, and at the same time was a gluttonous energy waster then maybe you might have a point. But for those calling for systemic changes to our energy paradigm its really just besides the point.

But the logically challenged among us make no such distinction, posting things like...

Anyone who advocates policies to reduce CO2 should be living a life where they minimize their personal use

This is moronic of course, since advocating policies to reduce CO2, and promoting conservation or the curbing of consumption are complete different things.

People use energy... successful people use lots of energy, be it for comfort, entertainment, sport, or business. If anything the bigger consumers have MORE of a reason to be concerned with energy policy.

[Michael Hardner]

Now... If a person was advocating curbing personal consumption as the means to CO2 reduction, and at the same time was a gluttonous energy waster then maybe you might have a point.

And I think that's what we're talking about.

[TimG]

People use energy... successful people use lots of energy, be it for comfort, entertainment, sport, or business. If anything the bigger consumers have MORE of a reason to be concerned with energy policy.

There are few viable and political acceptable non-CO2 emitting energy sources so if one is advocating for reduced CO2 emissions one IS advocating for reduced energy consumption.

More importantly, all "solutions" to the CO2 problem require that the cost of energy be increased dramatically which will force the poor to reduce their energy consumption whether they want to or not. This reality turns people who claim to care about CO2 emissions but are flagrant energy wasters into shameless hypocrites of the 'let them eat cake' variety.

Edited December 5, 2014 by TimG