View Single Post
Old 14th January 2020, 10:47 AM   #849
Steve's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,955
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My point is that she's pretty consistent about deferring to the scientists in a vague, hand-wavy way that absolves her of any responsibility to say scientifically sound things.

And she's pretty consistent about making policy demands that don't actually relate to any specific recommendation by any actual climate scientists.

Look at her recent Guardian piece, cited upthread. She demands a complete and immediate cessation of fossil-fuel-related activity. She doesn't say "listen to the scientists." She doesn't cite a policy recommendation from climate scientists and say "do what these guys are telling you to do". The piece is literally her saying "listen to me and do what I'm telling you." Full stop.

I'd find her "listen to the scientists" more credible if she practiced what she preached, and if she demonstrated a nuanced understanding of the science in her own statements. The reality is that most of her statements seem to be designed to avoid any scientific evaluation.

Do you have any examples at all of her ever saying, "this is a science-based policy proposal from actual climate scientists; let's follow their recommendations"? Or is it really all just hand-wavy appeals to "listen to the science" followed by "listen to me say non-scientific stuff, and do what I say!"
Yes, your point is different than my point. Yet you keep asking me to provide examples of your point. I will not waste my time.
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top